Pd    '^^^  ;Pc.«^;_::^r  ■x::/ 


Gi3 
11/ 


OC-NRLF 


*B    7^3    &HS 


GIFT 
APR    ^^*:?~I9I8 


REPORT 


OF  THE 


First  American  Confeierice 

/  for 

Democracy  and  1  erms  of  i  eace 


held  at 


MADISON  SQUARE  GARDEN 

NEW  YUKK  CITY 

May  30th  and  31st,  1917 


Published  by  the  Organizing  Committee 

People's  Council  of  America  for  Democracy  and  Peace 

Two  West  Thirteenth  Street,  New  York  City 


^^'^ 


REPORT 


OF  THE 


First  American  Conference 


for 


Democracy  and  Terms  of  Peace 


held  at 


MADISON  SQUARE  GARDEN 
NEW  YORK  CITY 

May  30th  and  31st,  1917 


Published  by  the  Organizing  Committee 

People's  Council  of  America  for  Democracy  and  Peace 

Two  West  Thirteenth  Street,  New  York  City 


\V7 


•   •  •   •  -•• 

•  -  •  •  ;•  r  • 

•  •  •  •  *  •  • 


at 
4 


FOREWORD 


Two  nearly  concurrent  events  led  to  the  First  American  Confer- 
ence for  Democracy  and  Terms  of  Peace— first,  the  definite  entrance 
of  the  United  States  into  the  world  war,  and,  second,  the  Revolution 
in  Russia. 

With  war  actually  declared,  the  whole  question  of  democracy  and 
peace  presented  a  new  face  to  the  American  people.  Militarism  was 
no  longer  a  theory,  but  a  hideous  condition.  All  the  evils  that  had  been 
predicted  were  immediately  transplanted  bodily  to  our  country :  assaults 
upon  the  letter  and  spirit  of  democracy,  invasions  of  the  sacred  con- 
stitutional rights  of  free  speech,  free  press  and  freedom  of  assembly^ 
conscription,  excessive  taxation  and  unbridled  waste  of  public  funds 
and  material  resources. 

A  great  wave  of  indignation  swept  over  the  land. 

This  sense  of  outrage  was  not  confined  to  peace  societies.  It  came 
from  all  classes  and  from  all  parts  of  the  country.  Men  and  women 
in  all  walks  of  life,  who  had  felt  secure,  who  had  believed  that  the 
repeated  and  urgent  warnings  of  the  anti-militarists  were  merely 
products  of  overheated  imaginations  and  therefore  not  to  be  heedea, 
now  realized  the  situation  in  all  its  seriousness. 

There  was  need  of  a  nation-wide  organization  that  could  bring  all 
these  people  together  and  render  them  articulate  as  a  mighty  force 
demanding  that  American  democracy,  American  ideals,  American 
peace,  be  preserved  inviolate.  It  must  be  an  organization  in  which 
liberty-loving  men  and  women  could  sink  the  petty  differences  that 
might  have  divided  them  in  the  past,  leaving  them  free  to  focus  their 
attention  and  their  strength  upon  the  great  fundamental  issues  of  the 
crisis  before  them. 

Such  an  organization  was  rendered  doubly  necessary  by  the  Revo- 
lution in  Russia.  Those  who  might  have  been  plunged  into  the  depths 
of  despair  at  the  thought  of  America's  following  in  the  bloody  foot- 
steps of  Europe  were  encouraged  to  the  point  of  exaltation  by  the 
splendid  example  of  that  country  which  has  so  long  been  known  as 
"darkest  Russia.''  They  wanted  to  make  known  to  this  free  Russian 
people  that  the  feelings  of  those  who  dwell  in  America  were  not  truly 
expressed  by  the  warlike  and  undemocratic  action  of  the  official  govern- 
ment that  was  elected  to  represent  them.  They  wanted  to  show  that 
they  stand  solid  behind  the  Russian  democracy  and  are  ready  to  work 
determinedly  with  them  until  the  autocracy  of  the  entire  world  is 
overthrown. 


89834d 


The  following  Call  to  Action  was  issued  to  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  under  date  of  May  7,  1917 : 

("  It  is  now  less  than  six  weeks  since  the  United  States 

(  entered  the  world  war.  In  that  short  space  of  time  the 
grip  of  militarist  hysteria  has  fastened  itself  upon  the 
country;  conscription  is  being  placed  upon  our  statute 
books ;  the  pernicious  *'gag"  bill  is  about  to  be  for^  ed 
through  Congress ;  standards  to  safeguard  labor,  carefully 
built  up  through  years,  have  been  swept  aside ;  the  right 
of  free  speech  has  been  assailed ;  halls  have  been  closed 
against  public  discussion,  meetings  broken  up,  speakers 
arrested — and  now  the  danger  of  a  permanent  universal 
military  training  law  confronts  us. 

While  all  this  military  organization  is  going  on  in 

America,  rumors  of  peace  come  to  us  from  Germany, 

^    Austria,  Italy  and  Russia.     Shall  it  be  said  that  we,  the 

latest  to  enter  the  war,  are  less  concerned  about  the  early 

establishment  of  a  peace  based  on  justice  for  all  ? 

We  call  on  all  American  citizens  to  unite  with  us  in 
the  First  American  Congress  on  Democracy  and  Terms  of 
Peace,  at  the  Madison  Square  Theatre,  on  May  30  and  31, 
,.  to  discuss  how  best  we  can  aid  our  government  in  bringing 
to  ourselves  and  the  world  a  speedy,  righteous  and  endur- 
ing peace. 

That  those  who  fostered  the  movement  had  judged  wisely  was 
quickly  evident  from  the  spontaneous  and  widespread  response.  The 
time  was  short,  the  difficulties  of  disseminating  the  call  were  great  and 
^equate  funds  were  lacking.  It  is  all  the  more  remarkable,  therefore, 
that  when  the  Conference  met  at  the  appointed  hour  there  were  mem- 
bers present  from  forty-three  of  the  forty-eight  States  of  the  Union. 
These  represented  all  shades  of  political,  economic  and  religious- 
thought.  There  were  Jewish  rabbis  and  Christian  clergy,  farmers,, 
editors,  college  professors,  laboring  men  and  professional  men ;  Single 
Taxers,  Socialists,  Democrats  and  Republicans ;  the  individualist  repre- 
senting only  himself  and  the  president  of  a  great  labor  organization 
representing  500,000  American  workers. 

■t^  The  deliberations  were  carried  on  through  six  long  and  busy  ses- 
sions and  the  accompanying  meetings  of  the  hard-worked  cojnmittees. 
The  Conference  ended  with  one  of  the  largest  mass  meetmgs  that  ever 
stormed  the  doors  of  Madison  Square  Garden.  The  gathermg  was 
marked  throughout  by  a  great  harmony  of  ideals  a  great  unity  of 
purpose  a  great  stauhchness  of  spirit.  The  members  had  come_  to- 
gether with  a  full  sense  of  the  gravity  of  the  moment  and  a  determma- 
tion  to  let  nothing  turn  them  aside  from  the  two  great  subjects  at  issue, 
democracy  and  peace.  They  were  men  and  women  who  had  thought 
long  and  deeply  upon  these  vital  questions.  They  had  made  up  their 
minds  and  were  resolved  henceforward  to  ally  themselves  boldly  and 


unequivocally  with  those  forces  so  gloriously  exemplified  by  the  new- 
born Russian  Republic.  This  is  clearly  reflected  in  the  positive  straight- 
forward resolutions  which  the  Conference  adopted  covering  the  main 
topics  under  consideration. 

In  publishing  this  report  of  proceedings,  the  aim  has  been  not  to 
give  a  cold  verbatim  record  of  the  Conference,  but  rather  to  produce 
a  volume  which  would  cover  in  compact  form,  and  unified  as  much 
as  possible,  the  various  outstanding  phases  of  the  subjects  under  dis- 
cussion and  which  would  therefore  serve  as  a  valuable  book  of  refer- 
ence for  students,  writers,  speakers  and  others  interested  in  helping 
to  organize  the  world  for  enduring  peace  and  democracy. 

In  order  to  accomplish  this  purpose  and  bring  the  brochure  within 
reasonable  limits,  the  editors  have  found  it  necessary  to  make  many 
abridgements  of  the  formal  discussions  and  to  eliminate  the  infonnal 
discussions  altogether.  Among  the  men  and  women  who,  in  addition 
to  those  whose  addresses  are  reported  herein,  gave  valuable  assistance 
in  the  formal  and  informal  discussions,  both  from  the  floor  and  from 
the  platform,  the  following  should  be  mentioned:  Frank  Stephens, 
Arden,  Del. ;  Lewis  A.  Maverick,  San  Antonio,  Tex. ;  Marion  B. 
Cothren,  Brooklyn;  Mrs.  Darwin  J.  Meserole^  Brooklyn;  Jacob  Pan- 
ken,  New  York ;  Ludwig  Lore,  New  York ;  Job  Harriman,  Califor- 
nia, and  others. 


RESOLUTIONS 

ADOPTED  BY  THE 

First  American  Conference  on  Democracy  and  Peace 
New  York  City,  May  30  and  31,  1917 


PREAMBLE 

United  in  our  love  for  America,  we  are  convinced  that  we  can 
best  serve  our  country  by  urging  upon  our  countrymen  the  adoption  of 
the  following  policies : 

1.    PEACE 

The  conference  favors  an  early,  general  and  democratic  peace,  to 
be  secured  through  negotiation  in  harmony  with  the  principles  outlined 
by  the  President  of  the  United  States  and  by  revolutionary  Russia,  and 
accepted  substantially  by  the  progressive  and  democratic  forces  of 
France,  England,  Italy,  Germany,  Austria  and  other  countries,  namely : 

(a)  No  forcible  annexation  of  territory. 

(b)  No  punitive  indemnities. 

(c)  Free  development  of  all  nationalities. 

We  favor  international  reorganization  for  the  maintenance  of 
peace.  As  steps  leading  thereto,  we  suggest :  The  adjudication  of  dis- 
putes among  nations ;  simultaneous  disarmament ;  freedom  of  the  seas 
and  international  waterways ;  protection  of  small  nations  and  other 
similar  measures. 

We  urge  the  government  of  the  United  States  immediately  to  an- 
nounce its  war  aims  in  definite  and  concrete  terms  upon  the  above 
principles  and  to  make  efforts  to  induce  the  allied  countries  to  make 
similar  declarations,  thus  informing  our  public  for  what  concrete 
objects  they  are  called  upon  to  fight,  and  thereby  forcing  a  definite 
expression  of  war  aims  on  the  part  of  the  central  powers. 

We  demand  that  this  country  shall  make  peace  the  moment  its 
announced  aims  shall  have  been  achieved,  and  that  it  shall  not  carry 
on  war  for  the  territorial  and  imperialistic  ambitions  of  other  countries. 
Further,  we  demand  that  it  shall  make  no  agreement  with  other  govern- 


ments  limiting  its  freedom  of  action  nor  any  agreement  or  understand- 
ing looking  toward  an  economic  war  after  the  war. 

COMMITTEE.— Morris  Hillquit,  New  York  City,  chairman; 
Jenkin  Lloyd  Jones,  Chicago,  111. ;  Emily  Greene  Balch,  Boston,  Mass. ; 
William  I.  Hull,  Swarthmore,  Pa. ;  Randolph  Bourne,  New  York 
City;  Anne  Withington,  Boston,  Mass.;  Alfred  J.  Boulton,  New  York 
City;  Leonora  O'Reilly,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. ;  Algernon  Lee,  New  York 
City ;  Professor  Lindley  M.  Keasbey,  Texas. 

2.    AMERICAN  UBERTIES 

The  first  victims  of  war  are  the  people's  liberties.  It  was  to  reserve 
these  liberties  that  our  forefathers  framed  the  first  amendment  to  the 
constitution,  forbidding  Congress  to  abridge  "the  freedom  of  speech 
or  of  the  press,  or  the  right  of  the  people  peaceably  to  assemble  and  to 
petition  the  government  for  a  redress  of  grievances." 

We  hereby  protest  to  the  President  and  Congress  against  the 
abridgment  of  these  rights,  and  call  upon  the  American  people  to 
defend  them.  We  shall  oppose  w^ith  all  legal  means  at  our  disposal 
the  censorship  of  newspapers  and  of  other  printed  matter  or  interfer- 
ence with  their  distribution  by  the  postal  department. 

We  demand  that  private  mail  shall  not  be  tampered  with.  The 
invasion  of  homes  or  offices  without  search  warrant  and  the  seizure  of 
private  letters  and  documents  is  clearly  a  violation  of  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States.  We  protest  against  the  suppression  of  any  public 
meetings  of  American  citizens.  To  imprison  citizens  without  warrant 
or  charge  is  a  practical  suspension  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus. 

We*  also  declare  that  all  Americans  are  entitled  to  passports  to 
neutral  countries.  Legislation  now  pending  in  Congress,  if  passed,  will 
make  this  country  more  autocratic  than  Russia  under  the  rule  of  the 
czar. 

Secret  diplomacy  must  be  abolished.  We  demand  democratic  con- 
trol of  our  foreign  policy.  We  call  for  a  referendum  on  questions  of 
war  and  conscription.  We  insist  on  discussion  in  Congress,  in  the 
press  and  in  public  meetings  of  the  terms  of  all  alliances,  agreements 
and  treaties.  It  seems  to  be  the  intention  of  the  government  now  to 
forbid  even  the  discussion  of  the  terms  of  peace  in  the  press  and  in 
public  meetings. 

We  pledge  ourselves  to  work  for  the  repeal  of  all  laws  for  com- 
pulsory military  training  and  compulsory  service  and  to  oppose  the 
enactment  of  all  such  laws  in  the  future. 

Inasmuch  as  we  believe  conscription  laws  to  be  unconstitutional 
(violating  the  13th  amendment  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States, 
which  provides  that  there  shall  be  no  involuntary  servitude)  we  appeal 
to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  so  to  amend  the  conscription  act 
before  June  5  as  to  grant  exemption  to  all  conscientious  objectors, 
whether  or  not  they  be  members  of  recognized  religious  denominations. 


Inasmuch  as  young  men  of  conscriptable  age  are  inquiring- 
whether  or  not  military  registration  on  June  5th  will  subject  them  im- 
mediately to  military  law  and  will  compel  them  to  work  without  the 
protection  of  labor  laws  under  any  conditions  which  the  military 
executive  may  force  upon  them ;  and  inasmuch  as  the  legal  branch 
of  the  War  Department  has  thus  far  refused  to  answer  questions  con- 
cerning the  status  of  these  men  after  registration. 

This  conference  hereby  appeals  to  the  government  for  a  full  and 
unmistakable  pronouncement  on  this  point. 

COMMITTEE — Richard  W.  Hogue,  chairman ;  Lola  Maverick 
Lloyd,  Winnetka,  111. ;  Bernard  J.  Walton,  Swarthmore,  Pa. ;  Prof.  H. 
W.  L.  Dana,  New  York  City;  Harry  Weinberger,  New  York  City; 
Rev.  Norman  Thomas,  New  York  City ;  Victor  Berger,  Milwaukee ; 
Donald  Stephens,  Delaware ;  Alex.  L.  Trachtenberg,  New  York  City. 

3.    INDUSTRIAL  STANDARDS 

The  standard  of  living  of  American  workers  prior  to  the  war  was 
low  enough,  as  revealed  by  the  report  of  the  industrial  relations  com- 
mission and  other  impartial  investigators. 

The  long  struggle  that  has  been  waged  to  reduce  hours,  to  raise 
wages,  to  abolish  child  labor,  to  protect  the  life,  limbs  and  health  of 
the  w^age  earners,  has  created  definite  minimum  labor  standards.  A 
nation-wide  assault  on  these  standards  is  now  in  progress.  Labor  laws 
are  being  susi)ended  or  repealed ;  cheap  alien  labor  is  to  be  imported ; 
women  are  replacing  the  men  who  leave  for  the  front.  We  call  upon 
the  working  people  to  resist  this  assault  by  insisting  that  the  labor  laws 
be  preserved  and  enforced;  by  maintaining  the  rights  gained  through 
the  labor  movements ;  by  opposing  the  importation  of  cheap  alien  labor 
and  prisoners  of  war,  and  by  insisting  that  where  women  take  the  place 
of  men  they  receive  men's  wages. 

To  furnish  the  vast  profits  that  American  organized  business  is 
exacting  from  the  American  people,  the  cost  of  living  has  been  in- 
creased until  it  is  undermining  American  standards.  We,  therefore, 
demand  that  Congress  provide  forthwith  the  machinery  for  the  fixing 
of  maximum  prices  on  the  necessities  of  life  and  minimum  wages  which 
will  insure  health,  efficiency,  comfort  and  education. 

Taxation  of  the  necessities  of  life  invariably  reduces  standards  of 
living.  We,  therefore,  demand  that  none  of  the  revenue  required  for 
the  prosecution  of  the  war  shall  come  from  the  taxation  of  necessaries. 

Industrial  plutocracy  makes  for  war^ndustrial  democracy  for 
peace.  This  brings  with  it  autocratic  control  of  industry  in  the  interest 
of  the  ruling  classes.  The  American  people,  joining  hands  with  the 
new  democracy  of  Russia,  must  lay  the  basis  for  permanent  world 
peace  by  establishing  industrial  democracy. 

COMMITTEE. — Scott  Nearing,  Toledo,  Ohio,  chairman;  James 
Bagley,  New  York  City;  Edward  Cassidy,  New  York  City;  Henri 
Bereche,  New  York  City ;  Owen  R.  Lovejoy,  New  York  City ;  Mrs. 
Florence  Kelley,  New  York  City;  A.  Baroff,  New  York  City;  Miss 
Amy  Hicks,  New  York  City. 


4.    PERMANENT  ORGANIZATION  AND  FUTURE 
ACTIVITIES 

Resolved,  That  the  conference  elect  an  executive  committee  of 
eight  members,  with  power  to  add  to  their  number,  and  with  the  under- 
standing that  this  organizing  committee  organize  a  permanent  dele- 
gated people's  council  from  all  sympathetic  groups,  to  give  immediate 
and  permanent  effect  to  the  resolutions  of  the  First  American  Con- 
ference for  Democracy  and  Terms  of  Peace. 

Resolved,  That  this  committee  recommend  the  appointment  by  the 
chairman  of  this  conference  of  a  committee  which  shall  go  at  once  to 
Washington  to  present  the  resolutions  of  the  conference  and  ask  the 
President  for  the  terms  on  which  the  administration  would  be  willing 
to  make  peace. 

Resolved,  That  the  permanent  committee  arrange  for  a  similar 
conference  on  democracy  and  terms  of  peace  in  Illinois  immediately, 
and  for  a  similar  conference  in  California  as  soon  as  practicable  there- 
after, as  originally  intended  in  connection  with  this  conference. 

Resolved,  That  the  organizing  committee  on  permanent  organiza- 
tion be  instructed  to  create  at  once  a  commiteee  on  international  co- 
operation, representing  all  the  democratic  forces'  in  the  United  States 
field,  to  work  in  co-operation  with  the  democratic  forces  of  other 
countries,  both  during  and  after  the  war. 

Resolved,  That  the  organizing  committee  on  permanent  organiza- 
tion be  instructed  to  see  to  it  that  legal  defense  of  all  American  liberties 
in  war  time  is  effectively  organized  throughout  the  United  States. 

COMMiITTEE. — James  Maurer,  Harrisburg,  Pa.,  chairman; 
Frank  Stephens,  Arden,  Del. ;  Mary  Ware  Dennett,  New  York  City ; 
Crystal  Eastman,  Croton-on-Hudson,  N.  Y. ;  Job  Harriman,  Los  An- 
geles, Cal. ;  Rebecca  Shelly,  New  York  City ;  Daniel  Roy  Freeman, 
Grand  Rapids,  Mich. ;  W^illard  C.  Wheeler,  Boston,  Mass. ;  Rose 
Schneidermann,  New  York  City ;  Arthur  Fisher,  Chicago,  111. ;  Max 
Pine,  New  York  City ;  Adolph  Germer,  Chicago,  111. ;  Max  Eastman, 
New  York  City ;  Edward  Hartman,  Boston,  Mass. ;  Harold  Rotzel, 
Worcester,  Mass. ;  Fola  La  Follete,  New  York  City ;  Harry  Laidler, 
New  York  City ;  Louis  P.  Lochner,  Chicago,  111. ;  Joseph  Schlossberg, 
New  York  City ;  Daniel  Kiefer,  Cincinnati,  Ohio ;  Charles  W.  Ervin, 
New  York  City ;  Elizabeth  Freeman,  New  York  City ;  Margaret  Lane, 
New  York  City. 


10 


Conference  for  Democracy  and  Terms  of  Peace 

Garden  Theatre,  New  York  City 


First  Session 

Wednesday,  May  30,  10  A.  M. 


OPENING  ADDRESS  BY  DR.  J.  L.'  MAGNES,  NEW  YORK, 

CHAIRMAN 

We  have  come  in  the  midst  of  war  to  aid  the  cause  of  peace.  We 
have  come  from  all  parts  of  our  loved  country  to  re-dedicate  ourselves 
to  the  cause  of  democracy  and  international  brotherhood.  We  come 
here  because  we  love  America  and  because  we  want  America  to 
assume  leadership  in  bringing  about  a  speedy  and  universal  and  demo- 
cratic peace  such  as  will  endure  for  a  long  time  to  come. 

We  have  not  come  as  obstructionists.  We  are  aware  of  the  gravity 
of  the  situation  confronting  our  government.  We  are  eager  to  be  of 
aid.  We  do  not  pretend  to  advise  as  to  the  conduct  of  the  war — we 
have  no  talent  for  that.  We  do,  however,  think  that  we  can  be  of  aid 
in  advising  our  Government  and  the  people  of  America  as  to  the  neces- 
sity and  the  method  of  bringing  about  a  speedy  and  universal  and 
democratic  peace. 

We  assume  that  our  Government  is  anxious  to  hear  what  the 
citizens  of  this  democracy  have  to  say.  The  Secretary  of  the  Navy 
said  on  May  25  that  ''the  spirit  of  the  administration  is,  that  comment 
and  criticism  are  the  very  life  of  a  democracy."  In  any  event  we 
should  have  regarded  it  as  our  duty  as  citizens  of  the  American  Re- 
public to  exercise  our  constitutional  rights  of  free  speech,  of  peaceable 
assemblage  and  of  petition,  and  to  express  such  views  and  to  take  such 
action  as  in  this  emergency  we  think  best  for  America.  We  agree  very 
seriously  and  literally  with  what  our  President  said  concerning  the 
''privilege  of  men  everywhere  to  choose  their  way  of  life  and  of 
obedience." 

We  urge  upon  the  President  and  the  Congress  an  immediate  public 
statement  of  our  w^ar  aims  and  our  peace  terms.  Our  young  men  are 
about  to  be  drafted  into  military  service  and  our  soldiers  are  about 
to  be  sent  across  the  seas.  What,  in  concrete  terms  that  every  man 
can  understand,  are  they  to  fight  for,  and  uport  what  terms  will  Amer- 
ica be  ready  to  end  the  war  and  make  peace?  We  urge  further  that 
when  such  concrete  aims  shall  have  been  formulated,  the  President  de- 
ll 


clare  as  a  standing  peace  offer  to  Germany,  that  whenever  these  speci- 
fied aims  shall  have  been  achieved  we  are  ready  to  end  the  war. 

The  President  and  Congress  have  said  that  we  have  gone  to  war 
because  of  Germany's  illegal  and  brutal  submarine  warfare.  Will 
we  be  ready  to  end  the  war  and  make  peace  if  this  ruthless  submarine 
warfare  be  ended  ?  This  question  should  be  answered  clearly  because 
as  to  it  there  is  confusion  in  the  minds  of  the  public. 

The  President  has  said  also  that  we  have  gone  to  war  because 
"the   world   must   be   made    safe    for    democracy."      The    American 
people — devoted  to  this  lofty  aim — have  the  right  to  know  just  what 
this  means  to  the  President.    To  make  the  entire  world  safe  for  democ- 
racy may  take  a  very,  very  long  time.     What  particular  part  of  the 
world,  then,  do  we  refer  to,  and  what  degree  of  safety  do  we  require, 
and  what  degree  of  democracy  will  satisfy  us?     Does  a  world  made 
safe  for  democracy  refer  to  Germany  alone,  or  does  it  refer  to  Austro- 
Hungary,  Bulgaria  and  Turkey  as  well,  with  whom  we  are  not  as  yet 
at  war?    Does  it  also  refer  to  some  of  our  Allies,  Japan,  for  instance- 
and  to  some  of  the  possessions  held  or  dominated  by  our  Allies — Ire- 
land, India,  Morocco,  Persia,  for  instance?    If  it  refers  to  Germany 
<^  alone,  what  are  we  after  there?    Is  a  military  defeat  of  Germany 
',  absolutely  essential  before  we  shall  agree  to  peace,  so  that  Germany 
>  and  all  men  may  know  that  Germany's  militarism  is  not  invincible? 
I  And  what  will  we  exact  of  Germany  if  she  be  defeated?    The  Presi- 
(  dent  has  said:     *'We  desire  no  conquest,  no  dominion.     We  seek  no 
(   indemnities  for  ourselves,  no  material  compensation."     Do  we  then 
{  demand  as  a  condition  sine  qua  non  of  a  world  made  safe  for  democ- 
(    racy  the  dethronement  of  the  Kaiser  or  the  reform  of  the  three-class 
:   Prussian  electoral  system,  or  a  ministry  responsible  to  the  Reichstag 
^   instead  of  to  the  Kaiser?     Or  must  Germany  become  a  Republic, 
^  copied  after  our  own?    If  we  are  to  make  Germany  into  a  democracy, 
(  are  we  to  dictate  forms  of  economic  as  well  as  of  political  life,  and  is 
■(  the  degree  of  democracy  to  be  determined  by  our  own  standards  or 
^  by  those  of  the  freer  democracy  of  the  new.  Russia?    The  people  of 
this  country,  who  are  to  bear  the  burden  of  this  war,  have  a  right  to 
know  exactly  what  a  world  made  safe  for  democracy  means.     They 
have  a  right  to  know  exactly  what  it  is  that  we  want  of  Germany,  just 
what  we  will  be  satisfied  with,  concretely  and  specifically  what,  if  we 
achieve  it,  we  shall   stop  fighting  for.      And  it  may  be  that  if  our 
Government  says  all  of  this  clearly  and  unmistakably,  the  echo  of  it 
will  reverberate  in  Germany,  and  to  use  the  President's  words,  we  may 
be  "that  much  nearer  a  definite  discussion  of  the  peace  which  shall 
end  the  present  war." 

The  new  Russian  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  said  last  week: 
"There  are  two  great  new  facts  in  the  war — the  Russian  revolution 
and  the  entry  of  the  great  republic  of  the  United  States."  One  of  the 
things  this  Conference  on  Democracy  and  Peace  Terms  is  aiming  at  is 
to  suggest  ways  and  means  whereby  these  two  forces  may  co-operate 
to  bring  about  a  speedy,  general  and  democratic  peace. 

12 


The  Russian  Republic  has  announced  its  war  aims  and  its  peace 
terms.  And  our  own  Conference  is  called  together  upon  that  very 
basis : 

No  forcible  annexations. 

No  punitive  indemnities. 

Free  development  of  all  nations  and  peoples  and  nationalities 

Because  of  this  eminently  humane,  just,  clear-sighted  policy,  the 
Russian  Republic  has  been  accused  of  all  manner  of  unscrupulous 
and  blundering  subservience  to  German  influence.  It  does  not,  how- 
ever, require  much  knowledge  of  the  Russian  situation  to  understand 
the  very  simple  and  cogent  reasons  for  the  policy  of  the  ne\y  and 
democratic  Russia.  Russia's  revolutionary  democracy  is  dominated 
by  men  and  women  who  are  the  creators  and  heirs  of  a  rare  revolu- 
tionary tradition  permeated  with  a  deep  love  of  humanity,  liberty, 
justice.  Is  it  not  natural  that  such  revolutionaries  should  be  eager  for 
an  international  peace,  that  they  should  not  lust  after  the  territory 
of  others,  that  they  should  banish  all  thoughts  of  inflicting  reprisals 
upon  their  enemies  through  punitive  indemnities  and  contributions, 
and  that  they  should  demand  the  right  of  all  nations  to  determine  their 
own  afifairs?  But,  from  a  narrower  point  of  view  as  well,  it  is  easy 
to  comprehend  the  reasons  for  the  Russian  peace  terms.  Russia 
wants  above  all  things  to  save  the  new  democracy  and  the  new  repub- 
lic. Any  other  peace  terms  would  be  a  menace  to  the  new  Russia. 
These  peace  terms  offer  a  possible  basis  of  a  speedy,  general,  demo- 
cratic peace,  and  in  order  to  be  saved  from  reaction  within  and  the 
enemy  from  without,  Russia  needs  a  world  at  peace  and  does  not  need 
new  territories  or  indemnities.  Russia  needs  the  opportunity  now 
to  work  out  its  overwhelming  problems  in  peace.  Or  shall  the  sug- 
gestion, insidiously  made  in  America,  be  adopted  by  Russia  that  "the 
best  thing  to  do  is  to  set  up  a  dictatorship  and  to  postpone  all  reforms 
until  after  the  war?"  If  Russia  suffers  a  military  reverse,  then  in- 
deed, a  military  dictatorship  with  a  snuffing  out  of  the  ardor  of  the 
new  democracy  will  inevitably  result.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  Russia 
cannot,  for  whatever  reasons,  achieve  this  speedy,  general,  democratic 
I)eace,  America  must  understand  that  the  Russian  armies  will  have 
the  spirit  to  continue  the  war  on  one  condition — that  their  own  ideal- 
istic war  aims  be  made  the  war  aims  of  their  Allies. 

For  every  eventuality,  therefore,  it  is  vital  for  Russia  to  have 
America's  aid  in  imposing  her  own  war  aims  upon  all  of  the  bel- 
ligerents. Russia  has  asked  for  this  aid.  On  May  4,  when  the  new 
formulation  of  war  aims  was  forced  upon  the  then  Provisional  Gov- 
ernment of  Russia  by  the  Council  of  Soldiers'  and  Workmen's  Dele- 
gates, Prince  Tzeretelli,  now  a  member  of  the  Provisional  Govern- 
ment, said:  "Now  that  the  question  has  been  settled  here,  our 
aims — war  without  annexations,  appropriations  or  contributions — also 
must  be  realized  abroad.  We  must  know  the  attitude  of  the  democracy 
of  our  Allies.  If  a  similar  movement  takes  place  in  the  foreign  democ- 
racies, this  will  bring  peace  much  nearer." 

13 


This  Conference  on  Democracy  and  Terms  of  Peace  is  meeting 
to-day  in  an  endeavor  to  bring  about  this  movement  in  the  democracy 
of  America.  We  aim  to  let  the  Russian  democracy  know  the  attitude 
of  the  democracy  of  America.  We  beUeve  in  the  Russian  war  aims 
and  peace  terms,  because  we  think  they  are  just  and  because  their 
adoption  by  all  the  belligerents  would  ''bring  peace  much  nearer."  If 
we  understand  the  President  aright,  these  are  also  the  war  aims  and 
peace  terms  outlined  by  him,  and  it  is  our  hope  that  he  will  now  con- 
firm this  in  the  clear,  precise,  specific  words  of  which  he  is  master. 
We  want  the  Russian  Democracy  to  know  that  in  America  there  are 
vast  numbers  of  American  citizens  who,  even  before  the  President 
has  spoken,  share  the  Russian  war  aims,  and  that  we  are  no  less 
eager  than  they  to  bring  about  a  speedy,  universal  and  democratic 
peace.  We  want  them  to  know  that  the  American  Democracy  does 
not  intend  to  lag  behind  the  Russian  in  the  development  of  political 
and  economic  internationalism,  and  in  all  the  constructive  arts  of 
peace.  We  want  them  to  know  that  we  would  vie  with  them  in  work- 
ing out  new  forms  of  freedom  and  of  life. 

In  the  course  of  this  Conference,  we  shall  tell  more  in  detail 
what  we  mean  by  "No  forcible  annexations,  no  punitive  indemnites, 
free  development  of  all  nations,  peoples  and  nationalities." 

I  think  it  important,  however,  briefly  to  say  at  the  very  outset, 
that,  in  general,  the  formulation  "No  forcible  annexations"  means, 
the  restoration  of  Belgium,  Serbia,  Roumania,  and  of  all  other  ter- 
ritories conquered  by  the  one  side  or  by  the  other.  It  means  that  all 
territorial  readjustments  must  be  secured  through  negotiation,  and 
that  in  these  negotiations  the  democratic  method  be  applied,  namely, 
that  no  territory  shall  be  transferred  from  one  sovereignty  to  an- 
other against  the  will  of  the  people  of  that  territory. 

If  the  minority  Socialists  of  France  can  demand  this  method 
as  to  Alsace-Lorraine,  if  the  Socialists  of  both  Serbia  and  Bulgaria 
can  demand  this  method,  as  to  the  Balkans,  surely  the  democratic 
forces  of  America,  which  seeks  no  conquest  or  dominion,  need  not  be 
more  loyal  than  the  king,  and  should  demand  the  application  of  this 
formula  and  this  method  to  all  the  perplexing  territorial  and  frontier 
adjustments  which  must  no  longer  disturb  the  peace  of  the  world. 

The  formulation  "No  punitive  indemnities"  means,  that  however 
much  one  belligerent  succeeds  in  crushing  another,  there  shall  be  a 
peace  without  victory,  that  is,  that  the  victor  shall  not  punish  the 
vanquished  by  expropriating  territory  or  levying  contributions  as 
Germany  did  with  France  in  1870.  This  does  not  mean  that  the  world 
shall  be  indifferent  to  the  sufferings  of  ravished  peoples  or  of  devas- 
tated districts.  It  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  thought,  as  expressed 
by  the  Boston  League  for  Democratic  Control,  of  "an  international 
assumption  of  the  expense  of  reconstructing  devastated  areas  in  Eu- 
rope, a  large  proportion  to  be  borne  by  the  United  States  in  return 
for  guarantees  of  future  peace." 

14 


The  formula  "The  free  development  of  all  nations"  means,  that 
every  nation,  people  and  nationality  shall  have  the  right  to  determine 
the  conditions  under  which  it  is  to  develop  its  ov^n  life.  It  means  that 
great  nations  shall  not  subjugate  small  nations,  that  subject  and  op- 
pressed peoples  and  nationalities  shall  have  the  right  to  life,  liberty 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  Lloyd-George  said  on  Sunday  that 
"Lasting  peace  will  come  when  all  the  peoples  of  Europe  are  free  to 
determine  their  own  fate  for  themselves."  The  Russian  formulation 
which  we  make  our  own  means  this — but  more  than  this.  It  means 
guaranteeing  the  rights  and  liberties  not  only  of  the  subject  peoples 
and  nationalities  of  the  Central  Powers,  but  of  the  subject  peoples 
and  nationalities  of  the  Entente  as  well ;  and  not  only  those  of  Europe, 
but  also  those  of  Asia  and  Africa  and  America  and  of  the  Seven  Seas, 
whatever  be  their  religion  or  their  color.  For,  it  is  only  if  the  peoples 
of  the  world  are  freed  politically,  economically,  spiritually,  that  the 
bases  of  a  lasting  peace  can  be  laid.  It  is  fatuous  to  suppose  that  any 
League  can  enforce  a  peace  based  merely  upon  power,  and  not  based 
upon  the  free  will  of  all  the  liberated  democracies  of  all  of  Europe,  of 
all  of  Asia,  of  all  of  Africa,  and  of  all  the  Americas.  i 

Russia  is  now  attempting  to  persuade  her  Allies  whole-heartedly 
to  agree  to  this  formulation  of  war  aims,  and  we  believe  it  to  be  the 
privilege  and  obligation  of  our  Government  to  aid  Russia  in  thus 
"bringing  peace  much  nearer." 

The  obligation  upon  our  Government  is  doubly  serious  because 
of  the  manner  in  which  some  of  the  belligerents  have  already  reacted 
to  the  Russian  proposals. 

Unfortunately,  the  English  reaction  to  the  Russian  formula  has 
not  thus  far  been  encouraging.  According  to  Lord  Robert  Cecil,  the 
English  must  hold  the  captured  German  colonies,  and  according  to 
Mr.  Asquith,  there  has  been  no  change  in  the  Entente's  war  aims. 
What  we  ask  is:  Is  America  in  the  war  to  help  England  get  Ger- 
many's colonies  and  to  achieve  the  imperialistic  ambitions  of  any 
of  the  belligerents?  Or  will  America  make  common  cause  with  Rus- 
sia on  the  basis  of  no  forcible  annexations,  and  thus  assure  a  peace 
without  victory  with  the  chance  this  gives  for  freedom  and  democ- 
racy and  civilization  the  world  over? 

The  Government  of  France  has  reacted  to  the  Russian  proposals 
by  declaring  through  Premier  Ribot  that  revanche  must  be  satisfied 
and  the  "lost  provinces"  be  returned.  Everyone  must  admire  the 
tenacity  of  France  in  its  struggle  to  reconquer  Alsace-Lorraine.  But 
have  we  gone  to  war  to  help  France  get  back  her  "lost  provinces"  and 
are  we  committed  to  the  theory  of  restoring  all  provinces  "lost"  in 
the  past  fifty  years?  And  is  it  our  theory  that  these  injustices  can  be 
cured  by  war?  Rather  than  embark  upon  the  complicated  enterprise 
of  restoring  lost  provinces,  should  not  the  policy  of  our  Government 
look  towards  the  support  of  the  Russian  policy  of  "No  forcible  an- 
nexations" without  quibble  and  equivocation? 

15 


Another  reason  for  our  making  common  cause  with  Russia  is 
because  Austria,  in  the  semi-ofificial  Fremdenblatt,  has  declared  her 
war  aims  to  be  identical  with  those  of  Russia. 

And  Germany !  There  are  those  who'  say  that  the  Russian  pro- 
gramme for  peace  is  a  German  programme  for  peace.  On  what  au- 
thority is  this  said?  Would  to  Heaven  that  this  were  Germany's  pro- 
gramme for  peace!  Would  to  Heaven  that  Germany  were  ready  to 
renounce  her  desire  for  annexations  and  indemnities.  Unfortunately, 
this  is  not  the  German  programme  for  peace.  The  German  Reichs- 
kanzler  refused  but  a  few  days  ago  to  declare  this  as  the  German 
peace  programme,  despite  the  manifest  advantages  of  doing  so  in 
answer  to  Russia.  But  though  this  is,  alas,  not  the  German  pro- 
gramme for  peace,  it  ought  to  be  made  so.  And  it  can  be  made 
so  by  America,  not  through  war,  but  if  America  will  back  Russia  in 
Russia's  declared  war  aims,  and  if  America  will  persuade — as  she  has 
the  power  to  persuade — the  English  and  the  French  to  make  these  war 
aims  their  war  aims  as  well.  For,  consider  well  what  was  said  in  the 
German  Reichstag  on  May  15.  This  was  said:  *Tf  France  and  Great 
Britain  renounce  annexation  and  Germany  insists  thereon,  there  will 
be  a  revolution  in  Germany."  In  other  words,  if  America  and  Rus- 
sia, as  the  new  factors  in  the  war,  will  exercise  leadership,  if  America 
will  back  Russia,  if  America  will  exert  its  vast  power  over  England 
and  France  and  insist  upon  the  adoption  of  the  Russian  programme, 
no  one  can  doubt  that  the  German  people  will  rise  up  in  their  might 
and  compel  the  German  Government  and  the  German  Junkers  and  cap- 
italists to  renounce  all  their  hopes  of  annexations  and  indemnities, 
and  peace  will  result. 

To  be  sure,  the  mere  suggestion  of  peace  is  regarded  as  traitorous 
in  many  quarters.  The  word  peace  is  become  the  most  terrifying  in 
the  language.  But  we  are  undaunted  in  our  cry  and  in  our  passion 
for  peace,  because  we  know^  how  futile  all  wars  are,  this  one  among 
them. 

On  April  24,  but  a  short  while  after  the  Russian  revolution  had 
broken  out,  A.  F.  Kerensky,  now  Russian  Minister  of  the  Army  and 
Marine,  said :  'The  Russian  masses,  whom  I  represent  in  the  Pro- 
visional Government,  recently  established,  endorse  President  Wil- 
son's war  aims,  provided  the  President  was  speaking  not  as  a  diplomat 
but  as  the  mouthpiece  of  the  American  people,  when,  in  his  peace 
note,  he  proclaimed  a  desire  for  peace  without  victory,  and  a  re- 
establishment  of  European  Governments  along  lines  of  racial  develop- 
ment, the  world  will  find  the  Russian  soldiers,  Russian  sailors  and 
Russian  workmen  lined  up  solidly  behind  him  in  his  desire  to  free 
the  German  people." 

We  turn  to  our  President  and  we  adjure  him  to  speak  as  the 
mouthpiece  of  the  American  people,  to  reaffirm  his  belief  in  a  peace 
without  victory,  and  unequivocally  to  throw  in  the  lot  of  the  American 
Democracy  with  that  of  Russia,  and  bring  a  speedy,  universal,  demo- 
cratic peace  to  the  world. 

16 


In  any  event,  we  shall  not  cease  lamenting  the  fact  that  the 
President  found  it  necessary  to  urge  war  in  order  to  achieve  his  peace 
aims.  Alas,  that  America,  the  one  haven  of  refuge  for  the  oppressed 
and  the  suffering  of  all  the  world,  America  that  might  have  acted  as 
a  harbinger  of  peace,  bringing  healing  to  the  afflicted  nations,  is  now 
bloody  with  war.  On  January  22,  1917,  our  President  was  still  pur- 
suing the  method  of  negotiation,  of  neutrality,  of  moral  forces.  Alas, 
that  the  suspense  could  no  longer  be  borne,  that  the  moral  and  intel- 
lectual strain  grew  too  heavy,  that  patience  was  exhausted,  and  the 
plunge  was  taken  into  the  abyss  of  war  and  death  and  brute  physical 
force.  But  the  fact  that  we  are  at  war  cannot  make  us  abhor  war  the 
less.  The  fact  that  we  are  at  war  makes  us  but  the  more  determined 
to  loathe  it,  to  teach  our  children  to  loathe  it,  to  want  to  make  America 
and  all  the  world  loathe  it.  In  the  face  of  death,  we  stand  ready  to 
exalt  life.  With  destruction  before  us,  we  express  our  passionate  de- 
votion to  the  constructive  processes  of  religion,  literature,  science,  art. 
With  suppression  threatening  us,  we  speak  up  for  liberty,  for  freedom, 
for  democracy.  Not  only  have  we  a  rooted  and  ineradicable  repug- 
nance to  brute  material  force,  but  we  are  also  thoroughly  convinced  of 
the  madness,  the  inadequacy,  the  impracticability  of  the  war-method 
to  achieve  the  world  peace  so  touchingly  and  fervently  pictured  by  the 
President  on  January  22,  1917.  The  war-method  is  the  old,  the  long, 
the  slow  method,  the  unsafe  and  hopeless  way.  In  this  present  war, 
it  is  doubtful  if  even  a  miltary  victory — the  only  possible  excuse  for 
war — can  be  achieved  by  either  side.  But  victory  or  no  victory,  the 
millions  of  lost  lives  and  treasure  cannot  be  recalled,  the  anguish  of 
millions  of  innocents  cannot  be  assuaged,  the  heat  of  the  war  passions 
in  millions  of  the  earth's  children  will  not  soon  be  cooled,  the  bitter- 
ness and  hatred  of  men  and  nations  that  should  be  brothers  have 
poisoned  innumerable  sources  of  life  and  light  and  joy,  and  the  moral 
and  intellectual  and  religious  hypocrisy  of  leading  men  will  not  soon 
be  foi^iven.  No,  the  oppressed  and  driven  and  helpless  peoples  of 
all  belligerents — be  they  called  autocracies  or  democracies — will  not 
forget  this  crime  against  them.  The  plain  peoples  of  the  world  will 
find  it  hard  to  forgive  this  riot  of  power  in  the  hands  of  a  few  over- 
lords, and  the  ])eoples  of  the  world  will  surely  avenge  this  betrayal 
of  life.  Oh,  that  our  voices,  the  voices  of  many  peoples,  might  be 
heard,  and  that  America  might  justify  the  world's  high  hopes  of  her, 
by  commanding  peace  forthwith  as  easily  now  she  might.  The  Presi- 
dent's peace  aims  can  now  be  achieved  without  the  killing  of  more 
millions.  But  the  killing  of  more  millions  can  never  achieve  these 
peace  aims. 

Dr.  Magnes,  after  announcing  the  various  committees  and  asking 
for  suggestions  for  additional  members,  then  opened  the  Symposmm 
on  the  European  Sitnation. 


17 


Algernon   Lee,    Educational  Secretary   Rand   School,   New  York: 
Forces  Making  for  Democracy  and  Peace  in  Europe. 

Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  Complying  with  the  re- 
quest of  the  Committee  that  I  very  briefly  summarize  the  forces  in 
Europe  now  working  for  peace  and  demoracy,  I  find  it  necessary  to 
give  what  may  seem  to  some  of  you  a  disproportionate  attention  to  the 
International  Socialist  Bureau  and  the  Socialist  parties  in  the  various 
countries  of  Europe.  The  reason  for  this  lies  in  the  fact  that  the 
Socialist  movement  is  the  only  international  organi-zed  body  committed 
to  the  cause  of  peace  and  democracy,  which  is,  at  the  same  time,  in 
direct  contact  with  great  masses  of  the  people  in  all  of  the  various 
countries.  It  will  be  borne  in  mind  that  to  speak  of  the  Socialist  move- 
ment on  the  continent  of  Europe  is  for  all  practical  purposes  to  speak 
also  of  the  movement  of  organized  labor,  and  that  this  is,  to  a  very 
great  extent,  true  also  of  Great  Britain.  Besides  the  Socialist  and 
Labor  International,  there  are  certainly  in  many  countries — probably 
in  all  of  them — numerous  and  influential  non-Socialist  elements  earn- 
estly working  in  the  same  direction,  so  far  as  concerns  the  effort  for 
a  general  democratic  and  lasting  peace.  If  time  permitted,  for  in- 
stance, much  could  be  said  of  the  invaluable  service  that  has  been  and 
is  being  rendered  in  Great  Britain  by  the  Union  of  Democratic  Control 
and  other  organizations  of  a  like  nature,  including  among  their  active 
members  such  men  in  and  out  of  Parliament  as  Brailesford,  Morel, 
Bertrand  Russell,  Trevelyan  and  others.  They  work  to  establish  popu- 
lar education  concerning  the  causes  of  war,  the  effects  of  war  and  the 
economic  and  political  conditions  necessary  to  secure  peace,  consistent 
w^ith  liberty  and  with  progress. 

It  has  not  been  practicable  for  similar  elements  in  France  and 
Germany  to  assert  themselves  with  the  same  vigor  as  in  Great  Britain, 
but  there  also  it  is  clear  that  the  non-Socialist  pacifists  of  ante-bellum 
days  have  by  no  means  all  of  them  abandoned  their  ideas,  although 
in  most  cases  they  give  first  place  to  what  they  regard  as  the  necessity 
for  national  defense.  This  does  not  prevent  them  from  consciously 
aiming  at  a  peace  organized  on  very  different  lines  from  those  con- 
templated by  the  nationalistic  and  imperialistic  elements  in  their  re- 
spective countries.  If  they  have  not  yet  come  into  action  as  a  peace- 
making force  they  may  reasonably  be  expected  to  do  so  as  soon  as  the 
mass  movement  gets  well  under  way.  .  Finally,  one  ought  to  mention 
the  peace  societies  of  various  types  which  have  their  headquarters  in 
the  three  neutral  centers  of  Europe.  Switzerland,  Holland  and  the 
Scandinavian  countries  which  have  done  very  much  to  combat  the 
growth  of  national  hatreds  and  to  offset  the  effect  upon  the  popular 
mind  in  the  belligerent  countries  of  the  pernicious  misinformation 
which  is  so  industriously  disseminated  in  each  of  those  countries  by 
the  Government  and  by  the  jingo  press. 

The  importance  of  the   Socialist  and  Labor  International  then 
lies  not  only  in  its  own  strength,  but  also  in  the  fact  that,  for  the  rea- 
ls 


sons  I  have  already  stated,  it  is  able  to  act  as  a  rallying  center  for  all 
or  nearly  all  the  other  genuinely  democratic  peace  advocates. 

The  Socialist  movement  of  Europe,  through  its  international  and 
all  its  national  organizations,  made  every  effort  to  prevent  the  war. 
It  failed  for  the  very  simple  reason  that  it  was  not  yet  strong  enough. 
The  war  came  and  for  the  time  the  Socialist  movement  was,  though 
not  completely  disrupted,  yet  almost  paralyzed.  In  nearly  all  of  the 
countries  some  of  its  leaders  and  a  portion  of  its  rank  and  file  were 
swept  off  their  feet  by  the  unreasoning  epidemic  passion,  which  war 
always  tends  to.  Much  more  important,  however,  was  the  fact  that 
to  some  extent,  in  all  of  the  belligerent  countries — to  a  very  great 
extent,  especially  in  Germany  and  France,  once  hostilities  have 
begun  the  question  presented  itself  as  one  of  protecting  the  father- 
land against  actual  or  threatened  invasion  and  possibly  subjugation 
and  dismemberment.  Rightly  or  wrongly,  in  so  far  as  this  was  the 
case  in  the  various  countries,  most  of  the  Socialists  in  common 
with  the  mass  of  population  rallied  to  the  national  defence.  Then,  as 
months  dragged  on  without  any  decisive  result  coming  into  sight,  the 
International  Socialist  Bureau  removed  at  the  beginning  of  the  war 
from  invaded  Belgium  to  neutral  Holland,  with  Dutch  Socialists  added 
to  its  executive  committee,  but  with  its  loyal  secretary,  Camille  Huys- 
mans  (no  less  devoted  to  internationalism  for  being  also  a  genuinely 
patriotic  Belgian)  still  at  its  head,  resumed  its  activity  within  a  few 
months  after  the  outbreak  of  the  war.  It  has  maintained  direct  re- 
lations with  the  Socialist  parties  of  all  the  belligerent  and  neutral  coun- 
tries, and  it  has  steadfastly  and  consistently  labored  to  effect  as  soon 
as  possible,  not  only  a  mutual  understanding,  but  active  and  harmo- 
nious co-operation  of  all  these  parties  in  a  simultaneous  effort  to  bring 
the  war  to  an  end — not  through  diplomatic  intrigue,  but  by  the  asser- 
tion of  the  popular  will  for  peace — not  through  complete  military  tri- 
umph of  either  group  of  nations  and  the  humiliation  of  the  other,  an 
event  which,  if  conceived,  would  almost  inevitably  mean  the  strength- 
ening of  militarism  and  the  perpetuation  of  the  war  danger,  but 
through  a  negotiated  peace  on  bases  which  it  found  already  indicated 
to  it  in  their  main  outlines  in  the  declarations  of  the  International 
Socialist  Congresses  held  at  Copenhagen  in  1910,  and  at  Basil  in 
1912,  which  correspond  to  the  real  interests  of  the  masses  of  the  people 
everywhere,  and  which  have  found  acceptance  among  ever  larger  num- 
bers of  non-Socialist  pacifists  and  Democrats  as  the  war  went  on. 

The  main  points  of  this  program  were  as  follows :  No  punitive 
indemnities.  This  does  not  exclude  economic  or  political  rehabilita- 
tion of  the  ravaged  countries  or  districts  in  so  far  as  rehabilitation 
may  be  possible.  No  forcible  annexations — that  is,  no  transfer  of  ter- 
ritory against  the  will  or  regardless  of  the  desires  of  its  inhabitants. 
General  recognition  of  the  rights  of  peoples  to  dispose  of  themselves. 
No  economic  war  after  the  war  of  steel  and  blood — that  is,  no  alli- 
ance of  nations  to  thwart  the  industrial  and  commercial  development 
of  other  nations.  On  the  contrary,  an  international  agreement  for 
the  freedom  of  the  seas,  straits  and  other  paths  of  navigation  and  the 

19 


most  rapid  possible  extension  of  the  policy  of  free  trade  in  the  colo- 
nies as  well  as  in  the  home  land.  Suppression  of  secret  diplomacy, 
parliamentary  control  of  foreign  relations,  and,  as  a  beginning  in 
this,  participation  of  parliamentary  representatives  as  well  as  diplomats 
in  the  general  Peace  Conference.  Democratization  of  the  governments 
— a  demand  which  applies  with  a  special  force  naturally  to  the  states 
of  Central,  Eastern  and  Southeastern  Europe ;  this  change  to  be  ef- 
fected not  by  foreign  bayonets,  but  by  the  will  of  the  respective  peo- 
ples as  has  lately  so  happily  been  the  case  in  Russia.  General  accept- 
ance of  the  principle  of  mediation  and  the  eventual  arbitration  of  fu- 
ture disputes  between  nations.  And  finally  simultaneous  and  pro- 
gressive reduction  of  miltary  and  naval  armaments,  leading  to  complete 
disarmament. 

The  task  of  the  bureau  has  not  been  an  altogether  easy  one.  All 
of  the  Socialist  parties  were  from  the  start  willing  to  accept  the 
program  in  principle,  except  perhaps  for  some  reservations  on  the 
first  two  points — those  concerning  annexations  and  indemnities. 
But  the  majorities,  especially  in  France,  Germany,  and  Austria- 
Hungary,  were  all  influenced  by  a  fear  that  readiness  to  participate 
in  a  general  peace  movement,  in  a  vigorous  internal  opposition  to 
the  war  policies  of  their  respective  governments,  would  be  construed 
abroad  as  a  sign  of  national  weakness — nay,  would  even  actually 
impair  the  national  defense.  It  has  taken  time  and  bitter  experi- 
ence to  diminish,  and  even  now  not  altogether  to  remove  this  fear. 
The  Conference  of  the  Dutch,  Danish,  Norwegian,  and  Swedish 
Socialist  parties  at  Copenhagen  in  January,  1915,  of  the  British, 
Belgian,  French  and  Swiss,  at  London  in  the  following  months,  of 
the  German,  Austrian,  and  Hungarian  at  Vienna  in  April,  1915,  and 
of  the  Dutch,  Danish,  Swedish  and  the  American  and  the  Argentine 
Socialist  parties,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  Norwegian,  Swiss, 
Spanish  and  Roumanian  at  the  Hague  in  July  and  August,  1916 — 
these,  together  with  some  minor  gatherings  of  Socialists  from  dif- 
ferent nations,  all  contributed  something  toward  clearing  the  way 
for  an  agreement.  But  much  more  was  done  by  the  quiet  and 
patient  work  of  the  International  Secretary  and  the  members  of  the 
Executive  Committee  of  t'he  Bureau  and  by  the  action  of  the 
niinorities  within  the  various  national  divisions  of  the  movement 
in  their  respective  countries,  greatly  aided,  especially  in  Great 
Britain  and  in  the  neutral  countries  by  those  non-socialists,  paci- 
fists and  democratic  forces,  to  which  I  have  already  more  than  once 
referred. 

I  am  confident  that  there  is  to-day  the  best  of  reason  to  hope 
that  all  this  tireless  and  devoted  effort  is  now  about  to  bear  fruit, 
bringing  the  most  frightful  war  in  all  'history  to  such  an  ending  as 
no  war  has  led  to  in  the  past,  and  by  methods  which  were  never 
before  within  the  bounds  of  possibility.  Three  conditions  outside 
of  the  efforts  just  mentioned  have  worked  toward  the  realization 
of  that  hope.  In  the  first  place  the  war  drags  on  month  after  month 
w^ith  so  little  change  in  the  relative  fighting  strength  of  the  parties. 


with  such  slow  approach  to  decisive  exhaustion  of  either  side,  that 
even  now,  after  the  entrance  of  the  United  States  into  the  conflict, 
statesmen  and  military  men  talk  of  a  fourth  and  a  fifth  and  even 
a  sixth  year  of  war  before  victory  can  be  won.  The  misery  of  the 
soldiers  in  the  field  and  of  the  men,  women  and  children  at  home — 
not  on  one  side  but  on  both — grows  in  an  accelerating  ratio.  Hunger 
has  long  been  felt,  world-wide  famine  seems  not  far  off,  and  with 
intolerable  misery  come  a  passionate  longing  for  peace,  growing 
doubt  whether  any  conceivable  fruits  of  victory  can  be  worth  the 
costs,  and  especially  growing  indignation  against  rulers  Who  refuse 
even  to  consider  the  possibility  of  a  negotiated  peace  and  who  seem 
to  contemplate  an  indefinite  prolongation  of  the  war  with  complete 
unconcern  for  the  horrors  which  they  personally  do  not  have  to 
bear. 

In  the  second  place,  the  war  began  without  hate,  so  far  as  the 
masses  were  concerned.  In  each  of  the  countries  among  the  lower 
middle  classes,  as  well  as  among  the  peasants  and  the  wage  workers, 
there  was  a  widespread  recognition  that  the  people  of  the  enemy 
country  were  not  to  blame  and  that  all  the  governments  were  to 
blame,  though,  perhaps,  not  all  in  equal  measure.  The  war  and 
its  atrocities  brought  hate,  which  for  a  time  obscured  fhis  just  view 
of  the  facts,  but  the  wave  of  hatred  is  again  subsiding,  has  very 
largely  subsided,  in  spite  of  the  desperate  efforts  of  certain  sections 
of  the  press  in  all  the  countries  to  keep  it  up.  By  simple  familiarity, 
the  popular  mind  is  getting  adjusted  to  the  war,  not  in  the  sense  of 
becoming  reconciled  to  it,  but  in  the  sense  of  becoming  able  to 
regard  it  objectively,  to  think  about  it  in  a  logical  manner,  to  ask 
with  increasing  eagerness  and  insistence  what  it  is  all  about,  Whether 
it  need  go  on,  whether  the-  aims  of  the  various  governments  are 
indeed  identical  with  the  needs  and  desires  of  the  various  people, 
and  to  demand  of  the  government  a  definite  and  concrete  statement 
of  war  aims  and  acceptable  peace  terms,  so  that  the  people  may 
be  in  a  position  to  judge  for  themselves. 

And  in  the  third  place,  the  overthrow  of  the  Russian  autocracy 
has  changed  the  whole  political  situation  and  transformed  the 
background  of  the  war.  The  spectacle  of  a  people  casting  off  the 
government  that  had  so  long  oppressed  them  and  threatened  others 
has  given  an  immense  stimulus  to  the  latent  revolutionary  spirit 
throughout  Europe,  and  awakened  among  the  masses  a  conscious- 
ness of  their  power.  The  action  of  the  Russian  working  class  revo- 
lutionists in  forcing  or  instructing  their  new  provisional  govern- 
ment to  set  the  example  of  stating  its  peace  terms  in  an  unmistak- 
able manner,  definitely  and  conclusively,  repudiating  all  aggressive 
and  imperialistic  purposes,  taking  the  initiative  in  an  international 
popular  movement  for  a  speedy,  general,  and  lasting  negotiated 
peace — all  this  not  only  strengthens  the  democratic  peace  movement 
in  the  Allied  countries  and  in  the  United  States,  but  what  is  more 
important,  it  takes  away  from  the  German  and  Austro-Hungarian 
movements  one  of  their  strongest  pretexts — if  not  the  very  strong- 

21 


est — for  adfiering  to  the  diirchhalten  policy  and  puts  the  responsi- 
bility upon  the  masses  in  the  central  countries  of  Europe,  by  giving 
them  the  increased  opportunity  for  bringing  presure  to  bear  upon 
their  rulers. 

It  would  take  more  time  than  can  be  spared  to  give  any  kind  of 
full  picture  of  What  we  know  about  the  conditions  in  the  various 
countries,  with  regard  to  the  movement  for  a  democratic  peace. 
There  are  only  a  few  typical  facts  that  I  desire  to  remind  you  of  at 
this  moment.  The  German  Social  Democracy,  its  members  in  the 
Reichstag,  voted  unaniously,  so  far  as  .they  were  present — and  most 
of  them  were  present  in  the  Reichstag  at  the  beginning  of  191^^1 — for 
the  war  credits,  although  registering  a  protest  against  the  con- 
duct of  the  government,  which  had  led  to  the  war.  It  was  not  until 
December  that  two  of  the  Social  Democratic  members  broke  the 
unanimity  by  voting  against  the  credits.  In  the  following  spring, 
about  twenty  out  of  110  members  voted  ''No"  on  the  credits,  and 
about  another  twenty  or  a  little  more  than  twenty,  abstained  from 
voting — 2i  somewhat  less  emphatic  method  of  demonstration  against 
the  war  policy  of  the  government.  From  this  time  on,  the  Social 
Democratic  members  of  the  Reichstag,  more  or  less  clearly  divided 
into  a  majority  and  a  minority,  t'he  minority  for  now  more  than  two 
years,  numbering  fully  two-fifths  of  the  Socialist  representatives  in 
the  Reichstag  and  growing  since  that  time  bit  by  bit. 

It  is  impossible  to  speak  with  any  authority — I  suppose  impos- 
sible even  for  anyone  in  Germany  to  speak  with  complete  authority 
as  to  how  many  among  the  party  members  and  among  the  adherence 
of  the  party  are  represented  respectively  by  the  majority  and  the 
minority,  yet  it  is  clear  that  in  the  largest  and  strongest  districts, 
the  so-called  minority — the  anti-governmental  faction — is  the  actual 
majority  among  the  rank  and  file  of  the  party,  and  it  is  also  clear 
that  in  many  districts  whose  representatives  belong  to  the  majority 
which  has  co-operated  with  the  government,  the  rank  and  file  has 
expressed  itself  in  a  directly  opposite  sense,  and  has  given  the  world 
to  understand  that  those  representatives  do  not  any  longer  reflect 
the  sentiments  of  their  constituents.  It  seems  clear  that  if  the 
so-called  ''minority"  do  not  already  represent  an  actual  majority  of 
the  party  they  must  at  least  come  very  near  doing  so  and  that  their 
strength  is  growing  day  by  day. 

Within  the  last  few  months  the  difference  between  the  majority 
and  the  extreme  minority  came  to  the  point  of  t'he  formation  of  a 
separate  organization  within  the  party,  and  finally  of  the  formation 
of  a  separate  and  independent  Social  Democratic  party,  comprising 
about  one-fifth  of  the  full  Social  Democratic  movement.  This 
schism  simply  indicates  the  increasing  vigor  of  the  popular  opposi- 
tion to  the  undemocratic  and  militaristic  attitude  which  the  gov- 
ernment still  maintains.  We,  of  course,  do  not  always  know  just 
how  much  to  believe  of  dispatches  that  perhaps  first  have  to  pass 
the  German  censorship  and  then  have  to  pass  the  Allied  censorship 

22 


of  the  Associated  Press  before  getting  published,  but  with  all  allow- 
ance and  with  careful  reading  between  the  lines,  it  is  certain  that 
throughout  Germany  and  Austria-Hungary,  within  the  last  two 
weeks,  and  particularly  at  the  May  Day  time,  there  were  very  ex- 
tensive popular  demonstrations  in  the  form  of  strikes,  not  merely 
economic  strikes  for  wages  or  for  some  other  material  demand,  but 
strikes  having  a  distinctly  political  significance,  and  that  were  dis- 
tinctly demonstrations  unfavorable  to  the  policy  of  the  government 
and  in  favor  of  the  movement  for  a  democratic  peace. 

It  is  certain  that  considering  the  very  difficult  conditions  which 
prevailed  with  a  government  vastly  more  efficient  than  was  the  old 
Russian  autocracy,  and  therefore  the  more  difficult  to  defy,  these 
demonstrations  were  very  remarkable  indeed.  Our  chairman  has 
already  referred  to  the  fact  that  within  the  last  month  the  German 
government  was  assured  in  the  Reichstag  that  if  it  failed  to  meet 
a  genuine  proposal  for  democratic  peace  revolution  in  Germany 
would  be  the  consequence.  That  declaration  is  all  the  more  impres- 
sive because  it  came  from  the  mouth  of  a  man  who  is,  by  no  means, 
a  leader  of  forlorn  hopes — from  the  mouth  of  one  of  the  most  con- 
servative of  the  party — one  who  cannot  be  supposed  to  speak  in 
such  a  tone  unless  he  speaks  with  authority,  and  w'ith  a  pretty 
definite  mandate  from  his  constituents.  At  the  same  time  amidst 
the  howls  and  jeers,  of  course,  of  the  reactionaries,  the  definite 
cry  for  a  German  republic  was  raised  by  George  Ledebour  on  behalf 
of  the  Social  Democrats,  and  there  are  indications  that  the  reason 
that  it  caused  such  indignation  among  the  conservatives  was  that 
it  'has  actually  appealed  to  the  hearts  of  very  large  numbers  among 
the  people. 

In  the  dispatches  the  other  day  there  was  a  report  of  a  lecture 
by  a  University  professor.  The  German  University  professor  has 
not  within  any  time  during  the  last  sixty  years  been  expected  to  be  a 
radical,  popular  leader,  and  so  when  Herr  Professor  Dr.  Von  Wer- 
nicke declared  publicly  that  the  Prussian  people  are  tired  of  being 
ruled  by  the  Junkertum  he  thought  there  was  a  large  number  of 
Germans  who  already  heartily  agreed  before  the  declaration  would 
be  made.  It  is  also  pretty  clear  from  the  recent  attitude  of  the 
Frankfurter  Zeitung  and  of  the  Tageblatt  that  not  only  among  the 
working  class,  but  among  the  very  large  middle  class  elements, 
there  was  a  determined  opposition  to  the  annexation,  militaristic 
policies  of  the  Junkertum,  and  of  certain  of  the  great  capitalistic 
interests,  and  a  decided  tendency  tov^ard  the  acceptance  of  any 
means  by  which  could  be  brought  about  a  negotiated  peace  upon 
the  lines  generally  indicated  in  the  movement  that  we  have  just  been 
considering. 

Of  the  events  in  Austria-Hungary  it  is  not  so  easy  to  speak 
because  our  information  is  extremely  inadequate. 

In  France,  within  the  Socialist  movement,  already  as  much  as 
ten  months  ago,  a  minority  of  about  two-fifths  of  the  party,  in 

23 


repeated  votes  in  the  meetings  of  the  Party  Council,  while  declaring 
for  the  continuance  of  the  National  Defense,  so  long  as  the  war 
went  on,  insistently  voted  for  the  rehabilitation  of  the  International 
— for  the  calling  of  a  general  International  Conference,  and  for  an 
active  effort  to  unite  the  parities  of  the  various  countries  in  bring- 
ing about  a  general  peace.  The  decision  of  the  French  Socialists 
to  send  delegates  to  the  Stockholm  Conference  is  a  great  turning 
point,  because  it  has  been  the  refusal  (a  refusal  which  could  not 
altogether  be  condemned,  in  view  of  the  presence  of  German 
troops  upon  French  soil)  of  the  majority  of  the  French  Socialist 
Party  to  participate  in  such  a  Conference  that  has  chiefly  stood  in 
the  way  of  the  iholding  of  such  a  Conference  for  fully  a  year  past. 

As  for  England,  the  British  Socialist  party  has,  by  an  over- 
whelming majority,  since  the  beginning,  stood  up  vigorously  against 
the  war  policy  of  the  Government,  and  there  has  been  a  small  seces- 
sion from  it  on  that  account.  The  very  much  larger  Independent 
Labor  Party  has  by  an  overwhelming  majority  supported  this  posi- 
tion, and  with  the  support  of  five  of  its  seven  members  of  Parlia- 
ment, and  with  the  very  able  service  of  its  Board,  the  Independent 
Labor  Party  has  been  the  center  of  the  persistent  and  quite  wonder- 
ful movement  that  has  been  carried  on  in  England  for  the  earliest 
possible  negotiated  and  democratic  peace.  It  was  said  in  one  of 
the  great  newspapers  in  this  city,  about  ten  months  ago,  by  an 
Englishman — a  rather  eminent  Englishman — that  there  were  not 
more  than  one  thousand  pacifists  in  all  England.  I  happen  to  know, 
having  just  been  in  England — within  a  month  before  that  time — in 
the  summer  of  1916 — the  Union  for  Democratic  Control  and  similar 
organizations,  had  succeeded  in  getting  more  than  one  hundred 
thousand  signers  within  a  few  weeks  to  a  so-called  "Stop  the 
War  Petition" — a  petition  calling  upon  the  Government  to  enter 
into  negotiations  for  /peace,  and  a  number  of  these  signatures,  I 
understand,  within  a  few  more  weeks,  rose  to  at  least  two  hundred 
thousand.  The  signing  of  such  a  petition,  under  the  circumstances 
there  existing,  was  to  invite  blacklist,  insult  and  ostracism  in  very 
many  quarters. 

At  the  January  Conference  of  labor — of  that  large  Federation 
which  includes  the  Independent  Labor  Party,  the  British  Socialist 
Party  and  many  trade  unions,  in  January  of  this  year  (that  is,  before 
the  Russian  revolution  and  the  events  that  it  brought  about),  there 
was  a  vote  of  one-fourth  or  rather  more  in  favor  of  a  rather  far- 
reaching  resolutiou  urging  immediate  negotiations  for  peace.  In 
view  of  the  situation  of  the  Labor  Party,  a  vote  of  25  per  cent,  in  its 
convention  was  a  very  remarkable  demonstration. 

Morris  Hillquit  (paper  read  by  Algernon  Lee). 

Since  the  outbreak  of  the  war  numerous  efforts  have  been  made 
to  bring  about  a  general  International  Conference  of  Socialists  for 
the  purpose  of  working  out  a  peace  programme  acceptable  to  all  parties 

24 


to  the  conflict,  and  particularly  to  the  Socialists  of  all  countries,  bel- 
ligerent and  neutral  alike.  These  efforts  in  all  cases  emanated  from 
neutral  countries,  but  later,  also,  from  the  Italian  Socialist  Party  and 
a  section  of  the  English  Socialist  Movement  (the  Independent  Labor 
Party). 

As  far  as  the  Socialist  Party  of  the  United  States  is  concerned  it 
called  for  such  a  conference  as  early  as  September  24,  1914,  and  re- 
newed the  suggestion  on  several  subsequent  occasions.  As  a  result 
of  these  movements  some  conferences  of  neutrals  and  some  separate 
conferences  of  the  Socialists  in  the  allied  countries  and  in  the  central 
powers  were  held,  but  all  moves  for  a  general  conference  failed,  be- 
cause it  seemed  almost  impossible  to  find  common  ground  between 
the  Socialists  in  the  contending  countries. 

The  President's  address  to  the  Senate,  the  broad  and  forceful 
formulation  of  his  peace  programme  and  the  manner  in  which  it  was 
promulgated  seemed  to  pave  the  way  for  such  a  conference.  The 
programme  was  formally  endorsed  by  the  Socialists  of  France  and 
Italy  and  also  by  those  of  Austria  and  was  favorably  received  by  the 
Socialists  of  all  other  countries,  neutral  and  belligerent. 

When  the  National  Executive  Committee  of  the  Socialist  Party 
of  this  country  met  a  few  days  after  the  date  of  the  President's 
address  to  the  Senate,  it  was  felt  that  at  a  time  when  the  Chief  Execu- 
tive of  this  Republic  thought  it  appropriate  to  address  the  govern- 
ments of  the  world  on  the  subject  of  peace,  the  American  Socialists 
could  do  no  less  than  to  initiate  a  similar  movement  among  the  Social- 
ists of  the  world.  The  Executive  Committee  therefore  cabled  the 
following  message  to  the  International  Socialist  Bureau : 

"Convinced  that  the  time  is  ripe  for  a  revival  of  the  Socialist 
International  on  the  basis  of  a  concerted  working  class  movement  for 
an  immediate,  just  and  lasting  peace,  the  Socialist  party  of  the 
United  States  requests  that  an  International  Congress  be  called  June 
3,  1917,  at  The  Hague.  Unless  by  March  1  the  Bureau  takes  steps 
to  call  such  Congress,  our  party  will  consider  itself  justified  in  taking 
direct  initiative." 

Similar  messages  were  sent  by  cable  to  every  Socialist  Party,  neu- 
tral or  belligerent,  affiliated  with  the  International  Socialist  Bureau. 

This  movement  of  the  American  Socialists  was  immediately  sup- 
ported by  the  Socialists  of  Holland,  and  the  Executive  Committee  of 
the  International  Socialist  Bureau  announced  that  it  w'ould  take  steps 
to  call  such  a  conference  at  the  earliest  opportunity.  Such  opportu- 
nity presented  itself  with  the  overthrow  of  Russian  autocracy,  and 
the  calling  of  the  Stockholm  Conference  is  the  result. 

The  charge  that  the  Stockholm  Conference  was  engineered  by 
the  German  Government  or  even  by  the  German  Socialists  has  not 
the  slightest  foundation  in  fact.  The  Socialists  of  Germany  were  in- 
vited to  take  part  in  the  conference  just  as  were  the  Socialists  of 
other  countries.    The  arrangements  for  the  conference  are  in  the  hands 

25 


of  the  International  Socialist  Bureau,  which  consists  of  representa- 
tives of  the  Socialist  Parties  of  all  countries,  and  the  practical  work 
is  being  done  by  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Bureau  consisting  of 
the  members  from  Belgium  and  Holland.  These  are  Emile  Vander- 
velde,  Camille  Huysmans,  Edouard  Anseele,  P.  J.  Troelstra  and  Henri 
V^an  Kal,  and  since  the  conference  is  to  take  place  in  Stockholm 
the  Committee  is  assisted  by  the  Socialist  Party  of  Sweden  under  the 
leadership  of  Hjalmar  Branting.  Anyone  who  knows  these  men  and 
their  stand  in  this  war  would  know  how  utterly  ridiculous  it  is  to 
charge  them  with  promoting  a  pro-German  enterprise. 

The  notion  that  a  pro-German  element  would  dominate  the  Stock- 
holm conference  is  absurd  for  another  reason.  At  the  proposed  con- 
ference, as  at. all  meetings  of  International  Socialist  gatherings,  the 
vote  is  by  nationalities,  each  nation  having  a  number  of  votes  propor- 
tionate to  the  importance  of  the  country  and  the  strength  of  its  Social- 
ist and  Labor  Movement.  Upon  the  established  basis  the  voting 
strength  of  the  different  national  groups  at  the  Stockholm  confer- 
ence will  be  as  follows: 

CENTRAL  POWERS 

Germany   20 

Austria    20 

Hungary    6 

Bulgaria    4 

50^ 

In  this  connection  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  twenty  votes 
allotted  to  Germany  would  have  to  be  divided  between  the  majority 
and  minority  wings  of  the  party  and  that  the  20  votes  allowed  to 
Austria  include  Bohemia. 

ALLIED  COUNTRIES. 

Belgium   12 

France   20 

England 20 

Italy 15 

Roumania   4 

Russia    20 

Servia    4 

United  States  20 

Finland    8 

123 
NEUTRAL  COUNTRIES. 

Denmark  10 

Holland 8 

Norway  6 

Sweden    8 

Switzerland 10 

Spain   6 

is" 

26 


Poland  (Russian,  Austrian  and  German)  has  together  ten  votes. 
These  figures  show  at  a  glance  how  impossible  it  would  be  for 
Germany  to  dominate  an  International  Socialist  Conference. 

Algernon  Lee: 

I  may  add  that  in  view  of  the  news  which  has  been  coming  to  us 
day  by  day  from  Petrograd,  1  am  sure  that  we  all  realize  the  equal 
absurdity  of  the  suggestion  which  has  been  made  in  certain  quarters 
that  there  was  a  deep  and  dark  conspiracy  to  lure  the  representatives 
of  the  Russian  Social  Democracy  to  Stockholm  and  to  trick  them, 
and  to  deceive  them,  and  that  it  was  necessary  for  the  United  States 
to  take  steps  to  prevent  their  so  being  lured  and  deceived,  and  to  give 
good  advice  to  the  inexperienced  democracy  of  Russia.  I  believe  we 
are  inclined  to  take  off  our  hats  to  the  democracy  of  Russia,  which 
is  the  result  of  fifty  years  fighting  for  the  victory  which  it  has  now 
won,  and  which  we  are  all  to  share. 

Alexander  Trachtenberg,  a  veteran  of  the  Russo-Japanese  War, 
and  a  participant  in  the  Russian  Revolution  of  1905 :  The 
Rtissian  Situation. 

I  have  but  a  few  minutes  to  touch  on  so  vast  a  subject  as  the 
recent  overturning  in  Russia.  In  the  beginning  we  were  told  that  the 
Russian  Revolution  was  made  possible  by  the  Liberalists  of  Russia, 
who  simply  were  afraid  the  Russian  Czar  and  his  bureaucracy  might 
make  a  separate  peace  with  Germany.  After  the  revolution  was  an 
accomplished  fact,  we  were  told  that  the  revolution  was  made  by 
Germany  so  as  to  get  the  Russian  revolutionary  proletariat  to  make  a 
separate  peace  with  Germany.     I  cannot  understand  this  logic. 

The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  the  revolution  was  effected  by  the 
Russian  workers  and  soldiers  and  that  they  were  not  even  assisted 
by  the  Russian  Liberalists,  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  Russian 
Liberalists  are  not  interested  in  what  the  Russian  revolutionists  are 
trying  to  accomplish  at  this  particular  time.  To  be  sure,  they  were 
anxious  to  secure  more  freedom  for  Russia,  for  an  independent 
development  of  Russian  capitalism,  but  they  were  rather  afraid  of 
the  Russian  proletariat,  which  would  take  control  of  the  affairs — 
which  might  renounce  the  continuance  of  war  and  especially  of  the 
desire  of  the  bourgeoisie  of  Russia  for  Constantinople,  for  instance — 
that  is  why  you  have  read  recently  of  the  fact  that  the  government  had 
such  leaders  as  Miliukoft*  and  Gutchkoff. 

The  Russian  Revolution  is  really  an  anti-war  revolution.  The 
active  revolution  began  as  soon  as  w^ar  was  declared,  because  at  the 
same  time  that  was  war  declared  in  Russia,  you  found  thousands  of 
Russian  workers  parading  the  streets  of  Petrograd  and  Moscow  and 
other  inlustrial  centers,  demanding  the  ending  of  the  war — anti-war 
demonstrations  were  held  throughout  Russia,  anti-war  literature  was 
distributed  in  Russia,  and  in  the  Duma  itself  the  few  Socialist 
Deputies,  knowing  they  were  always  under  the  watch  of  the  govern- 
ment, steadfastly  stood  against  the  war,  and  when  the  budget  came 

27 


up  for  consideration  they  left  the  Duma  as  a  protest,  and  did  not 
vote  the  war  credits.  In  fact,  later,  five  Socialist  Deputies  were  sent 
to  Siberia  for  anti-war  propaganda.  The  Russian  Revolution  was 
born  in  this  anti-war  movement  of  the  Russian  workers  and  the  mass 
of  the  people,  and  that  is  why  it  is  very  much  apropos  that  a  confer- 
ence of  this  sort  should  take  its  inspiration  from  the  achievements  of 
the  Russian  Revolution. 

We  were  not  able  to  understand  until  now,  when  the  Russian 
papers  are  reaching  us,  what  was  going  on  in  the  early  days  of  the 
revolution.  The  papers  are  now  reporting  that  the  demonstrations 
which  followed  the  general  strike  proclaimed  in  Petrograd  were  made 
by  masses  of  people  marching  through  the  streets  with  large  banners 
on  which  was  written,  ''We  want  liberty,"  "We  want  peace."  It  was 
simply  a  revolt  of  the  masses  of  the  people  against  the  continuation 
of  this  war. 

We  are  told  now  that  we  ought  to  favor  an  army — we  ought  to 
favor  militarism  because  the  revolution  would  not  have  been  possible 
but  for  the  help  of  the  arm}^  Now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  as  one  who 
has  served  in  the  army  in  war,  I  can  say  that  this  is  not  an  argument 
in  favor  of  militarism,  but  the  best  possible  argument  against  mili- 
tarism and  against  an  army,  because  the  present  army,  which  has 
revolted,  and  which  united  with  the  working  class,  was  not  an  estab- 
lished standing  army.  The  established  standing  army  was  killed  off 
during  the  first  two  and  a  half  years  of  the  war.  The  present  armies 
represent  workers  drawn  from  the  reserves — people  who  have  partici- 
pated in  the  Revolution  of  1905,  who  served  in  the  Russian- Japanese 
War,  and  were  therefore  opposed  to  the  government — those  drawn 
from  the  classes  of  people  opposed  to  the  government — people  op- 
posed to  militarism.  They  could  not  have  got  this  army  two  years 
ago  or  a  year  ago.  They  were  fresh  from  the  masses  of  the  popula- 
tion, rather  than  trained  professional  soldiers.  And  so  it  is  absolutely 
untrue  that  militarism  has  helped  this  revolution  now.  It  is  just  the 
contrary. 

Another  thing  to  be  cleared  up  is  the  question  of  a  separate  peace. 
Now,  there  is  no  such  intention,  except  for  a  very  small  minority  in 
Russia — a  group  of  extreme  Socialists,  or  as  they  call  themselves, 
Anarchists.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  entire  Socialist  movement  is  for 
a  general  peace — for  a  universal  peace — for  two  reasons.  First  of 
all,  because  the  entire  Russian  Socialist  democracy  which  is  now  in' 
control  of  the  affairs  in  Russia  is  completely  international.  The  whole 
Russian  working  class  is  imbued  with  internationalism.  It  has  been 
taught  so  from  the  very  beginning.  On  the  other  hand,  as  the  Chair- 
man has  indicated,  they  also  want  to  free  themselves,  in  order  to  solve 
their  own  internal  problems,  because  there  are  thousands  of  officials 
of  the  old  regime,  priests  and  others,  scattered  throughout  the  coun- 
try, and  they  may  be  easily  working  for  a  counter-revolution.  The 
Russian  provincial  government  is  anxious  for  peace,  both  from  the 
international  point  of  view,  and  from  a  purely  internal  point  of  view, 


not  because  they  want  to  help  Germany  or  any  particular  group. 
Just  yesterday  I  met  a  few  Russian  sailors,  now  in  this  country. 
I  asked  them  what  was  the  first  effect  this  revolution  had  on  the 
masses  of  the  people.  They  said,  "The  first  thing,  it  made  it  possible 
for  us  to  ask  the  government,  *What  are  we  fighting  for  ?'  " 

And  that  is  exactly  what  the  Russian  people  are  asking  just  now, 
and  it  finds  expression  in  the  government.  As  a  fugitive  myself — one 
who  has  found  a  haven  here  in  America  as  a  political  refugee — I  wish 
to  invite  to  free  Russia,  all  those  who  are  working  for  peace,  and  find 
themselves  uncomfortable  here. 

Dr.  J.  L.  Magnes: 

I  cannot  resist  taking  some  of  our  valuable  time  by  saying  that 
I  understand  that  a  society  has  actually  been  projected  in  Russia — 
somewhat  copying  the  name  of  a  society  that  has  done  very  good  work 
here  for  a  number  of  years  before  the  Russian  Revolution.  Some  of 
us  have  been  connected  with  it — ^The  American  Friends  of  Russian 
Freedom.  I  understand  that  they  have  projected  a  society  in  Russia 
known  as  the  Russian  Friends  of  American  Freedom. 


Louis  P.  Lochner:  The  Scandinavian  Countries. 

The  inspiring  impression  that  I  took  home  with  me  from  over 
half  a  year's  stay  in  Scandinavia  was  that  of  how  intensely  the  peoples 
there  are  working  on  the  problems  of  democracy  and  peace.  We 
think  of  them  as  monarchies,  and  often  assume  that  therefore  there  is 
very  little  democracy  among  them.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  are  very 
democratic,  possibly  even  more  so  than  America.  There  is  also  an 
impression,  hard  to  eradicate,  that  Sweden,  for  instance,  is  a  pro- 
German  country.  That  seems  to  be  an  impression  over  here  that  is 
hard  to  eradicate.  It  is  true  that  the  military  caste  in  Sweden  is 
pro-German  and  its  army  is  patterned  upon  the  German  model,  but 
the  heart  of  the  people  is  pro-peace.  They  want  to  keep  out  of  this 
war  at  all  cost. 

On  May  18th  of  last  year,  when,  as  I  happen  to  know,  the  British 
minister  at  Stockholm  had  packed  up  his  papers,  preparatory  to  leaving 
the  country,  because  it  seemed  that  twenty-four  hours  later  the  im- 
perialistic class  might  declare  war  on  the  side  of  Germany,  throughout 
the  length  and  breadth  of  that  country  immense  protest  meetings 
sprang  up.  The  crisfs  was  averted.  It  was  not  only  the  Social  Demo- 
cratic party,  though  that  is  a  tremendously  strong  factor  in  Sweden — 
it  was  the  whole  fabric  of  society,  with  the  exception  of  a  very  small 
class  at  the  top.  I  attended  a  number  of  the  meetings.^  Everywhere 
the  people  were  insistent  that  the  government  must  not  go  into  the  war. 

The  peace  movement  there  is  far  more  a  movement  of  the  people, 
a  movement  of  the  rank  and  file,  than  it  has  been  over  here.  Perhaps 
that  is  true  because  up  to  the  time  that  this  war  came  upon  us,  or 

29 


shortly  before  then,  the  peace  movement  was  largely  owned  by  the 
Carnegie  Peace  Trust.  They  have  no  such  thing  in  Sweden.  It  is 
there,  truly,  a  movement  of  the  people. 

Another  thing  to  consider  is  that  the  Parliaments  of  Sweden, 
Norway  and  Denmark  were  constantly  working  upon  the  problem  of 
how  to  maintain  their  neutrality.  It  was  a  curious  thin^  for  me  to 
find  my  friends  asking  me,  Why  is  not  the  American  Congress  doing 
anything  toward  keeping  in  touch  with  the  rest  of  us,  to  see  whether 
the  parliaments,  the  people's  representatives,  if  the  government  or 
administration  should  happen  to  fail,  cannot  do  something  to  avoid  the 
further  spread  of  the  world  cataclysm.  I  answered  that  it  was  perhaps 
specifically  the  business  of  the  American  group  of  the  Inter-Parlia- 
mentary IJnion. 

This  Inter-Parliamentary  Union  is  made  up  of  members  of  Parlia- 
ment of  all  countries  who  believe  in  the  cause  of  arbitration,  of  inter- 
national organization,  etc.  During  the  war  the  groups  of  the  inter- 
Parliamentary  Union  of  the  three  Scandinavian  countries,  as  well  as 
of  Switzerland  and  of  Holland,  have  made  it  their  special  business  to 
try  from  time  to  time  to  bring  pressure  to  bear  upon  their  govern- 
ments, in  the  direction  of  renewing  their  peace  efforts,  but  from  every 
side  came  the  answer,  "We  cannot  do  anything,  so  long  as  the  Ameri- 
can group  does  not  answer."  When  I  returned  here  I  tried  to  find 
out  why  it  was  that  the  American  group  was  not  doing  anything,  and 
I  found,  as  one  explanation,  perhaps,  that  the  secretary  of  that  group 
is  at  the  same  time  one  of  the  secretaries  of  the  Carnegie  Peace 
Foundation.  I  was  told  over  here  that  the  State  Department  and  others 
thought  it  was  a  very  delicate  matter  for  the  members  of  Congress  to 
meddle  in  any  way  with  the  international  situation,  etc.  But  I  said, 
"Here  are  these  members  of  the  Scandinavian  Parliaments,  who  do 
not  seem  to  think  that  it  is  beyond  the  pale  of  their  business  to  try  to 
help  along  the  cause  of  internationalism,  and  I  pointed  especially  to 
the  case  of  Switzerland,  which  has  repeatedly  asked  that  the  other 
neutral  groups  of  the  Inter-Parliamentary  Union  should  get  together. 
I  was  given  the  answer  that  what  may  be  good  for  Switzerland  is  not 
good  for  America. 

In  the  Scandinavian  countries  the  people  have  been  working  in- 
tensely on  the  problem  of  international  organization  after  the  war. 
As  an  evidence  of  this,  when  President  Wilson  made  his  peace  effort 
in  December,  I  believe  that  there  the  thing  was  far  more  thoroughly 
gone  into  than  on  our  side  of  the  water.  After  people  had  analyzed 
the  proposals  that  the  President  made,  then  the  Parliamentary  Union 
group,  the  peace  people,  the  Socialists,  all  brought  pressure  to  bear 
upon  their  governments,  so  that  the  three  Scandinavian  governments 
jointly  endorsed  Mr.  Wilson's  movement  for  peace,  and  were  fol- 
lowed in  so  doing  by  Switzerland,  and  finally  by  Holland  at  the  last 
moment,  because  of  its  very  delicate  position.  I  feel  that  if  we  are 
engaged  in  the  promotion  of  the  cause  of  democracy  and  peace,  one 

30 


of  the  best  things  that  we  possibly  can  do  would  be  to  send  forth 
from  the  American  movement,  that  I  hope  will  develop  out  of  this, 
a  delegation  that  will  stay  in  touch  with  Europe  at  some  spot  in  Scan- 
dinavia where  there  is  real  democracy,  where  they  can  breathe  the 
free  air  and  be  in  touch  constantly  with  those  many  international 
currents,  with  which  they  can  come  in  contact  there,  so  that  we  may, 
on  this  side  of  the  water,  be  better  informed  than  we  are  now,  as  to 
the  progress  that  democracy  is  making  throughout  Europe. 


31 


Second  Session 

Wednesday,  3.30  P.  M. 

Chairman,  Florence  Kelley. 

Morris  Hillquit,  International  Secretary  of  the  Socialist  Party  for 
the  United  States,  reporting  for  the  Committee  on  Peace. 
Terms  of  Peace. 

Madam  Chairman,  Delegates,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen : 

Our  government,  through  the  Committee  on  Public  Information, 
which  is  a  euphemistic  name  for  the  Censorship  Bureau,  has  just 
issued  a  suggestion  to  the  press  that  the  discussion  of  peace  in  these 
troubled  times  would  generally  not  be  favored  by  the  government, 
because  peace  conferences  may  be  inspired  by  the  enemy  governments. 
After  the  war  is  over  and  peace  has  been  established  you  free-born 
and  American  citizens  may  talk  and  think  peace  to  your  heart's  de- 
light. You  may  then  even  join  a  peace  society — one  of  those  that  are 
so  very  active  in  times  of  peace  and  so  very  passive  and  silent  in 
times  of  war.  Now,  we  proceeded  upon  the  theory  that,  notwith- 
standing the  wise  suggestion  of  the  Committee  of  Public  Information, 
it  is  the  patriotic  duty  and  the  humanitarian  duty  of  every  citizen  of 
this  country  at  this  time — in  time  of  war — to  think  and  talk  peace, 
and  to  hold  the  ideal  of  peace — for,  after  all,  even  the  administration, 
even  the  ultra-militarists  of  this  country,  will  not  contend  that  we  are 
in  war  now  just  for  the  pleasure  of  fighting.  Presumably,  we  are 
fighting  for  an  object,  and  presumably,  when  this  object  has  been 
attained,  there  will  be  no  more  cause  for  fight.  There  will  be  peace, 
and  we  say  that  if  by  our  activities,  if  by  holding  the  ideal  of  ultimate 
and  speedy  world  peace  before  the  people  of  this  country  and  the 
people  of  the  world  at  all  times,  wx  should  do  no  more  than  to  shorten 
the  duration  of  this  war  by  a  month,  a  week,  or  a  day,  our  activities 
will  be  fully  justified. 

In  the  thousand  days,  or  thereabouts,  that  this  war  has  been 
raging,  about  six  million  human  beings  have  been  killed — an  average 
of  six  thousand  a  day.  Every  day  of  the  war  costs  over  one  hundred 
million  dollars  to  the  belligerents,  every  day  of  the  war  sees  boundless, 
unspeakable  suflfering  all  over  the  world.  Is  it  not  then  a  purpose 
worthy  of  our  best  efforts  to  save  some  of  these  thousands  or  hun- 
dred thousands  of  human  lives,  to  save  some  shred,  some  particle  of 
modern  civilization  from  this  war.  Now,  we  say  besides  that  the 
peace  we  are  striving  for  is  not  to  be  a  mere  temporary  truce.  Just 
because  this  was  has  been  so  extensive  and  so  deadly,  just  because  it 
has    been    the    most    terrible    war    known    to    history,    it    must    be 

32 


made  the  last  of  all  wars,  and  the  terms  of  peace  which  we  are  called 
upon  to. work  for,  to  talk  over,  are  terms  of  such  a  peace  as  will  be  a 
lasting,  perpetual,  eternal  peace  among  the  nations. 

In  other  words,  we  are  not  primarily  interested  in  the  immediate 
patching  up  of  political  differences  between  the  nations.  Whether  or 
not  the  boundary  line  is  moved  upon  the  map  to  some  extent — 
whether  or  not  a  certain  indemnity  has  been  paid  by  one  nation  to 
another — whether  or  not  the  feeling  of  resentment  or  revenge  has 
been  gratified,  will  not  fundamentally  alter  the  fate  of  the  nations  for 
centuries  to  come,  but  whether  or  not  this  war  shall  end  with  the 
world-wide  arrangement  which  will  prevent  all  future  wars  and  will 
at  last  advance  human  beings  to  the  state  of  real  civilized  men  and 
women — that  is  fundamental — that  will  count  for  all  ages  to  come. 

And  so  then  we  set  this  first,  that  at  the  end  of  this  war,  as  a 
basis  of  all  peace  treaties,  there  must  be  a  definite  international  ar- 
rangement to  secure  and  maintain  peace  forever. 

We  know  perfectly  well  that  this  is  a  dream  that  has  been 
dreamed  by  many  and  many  an  advanced  mind  in  past  decades,  gen- 
erations and  centuries,  but  what  we  see  is  that  only  now — only  on 
account  of  this  war — an  actual,  realistic,  compelling  basis  for  such  an 
organization  has  been  created.  No  nation  after  this  war  can  attempt 
to  continue  a  separate,  sequestered  existence  in  hostility  or  antagonism 
with  other  nations.  This  war — no  matter  what  its  immediate  cause — 
is  essentially  a  war  for  international  trade  and  markets.  It  is  not  the 
act  of  the  maniac  who  killed  the  Austrian  Archduke  which  precipi- 
tated the  world  into  this  terrible  catastrophe.  It  is  the  fact  that  the 
world  has  been  at  war,  if  not  under  arms,  long  before  that  outbreak. 
It  is  the  contradiction  between  the  international  character  of  our  trade, 
our  commerce,  our  relations,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  artificial,  nar- 
row, national  boundarfes,  on  the  other,  that  has  brought  about  this 
war. 

Our  commerce,  our  trade,  our  intercourse,  to-day,  has  long  out- 
grown national  boundaries.  Every  great  business  enterprise  is  con- 
ducted with  international  scope.  We  are  producing  for  a  world 
market  to-day — we  are  trading  in  a  world  market.  Economically  and 
commercially,  it  is  one — one  organization — and  the  way  in  which, 
particularly  in  Europe,  people  have  tried  to  parcel  out  this  world  into 
rigid  nations  or  countries  with  rigid  boundary  lines,  separated  from 
each  other  by  various  and  conflicting  treaties  and  customs,  duties  and 
other  artificial  restrictions,  that  caused  the  jealousies  and  frictions  and 
eventually  the  war  with  which  we  are  confronted  to-day. 

So  we  say  that  after  this  war  the  self-interest  of  every  great 
nation  will  lie  in  the  direction  of  establishing  an  international  organ- 
ization between  the  nations.  There  is  nothing  Utopian  about  it.  All 
the  nations  of  Europe  will  be  compelled  to  follow  the  example  of  the 
United  States.  Have  separate  nations  ?  Yes.  Separate  governments  ? 
Yes.  Our  states  have  them.  But  freedom  of  commerce,  freedom  of 
intercourse  on  equal  terms  to  all  people  and  all  these  nations  just  as 

33 


well  as  we  have  them  in  all  the  states.  Such  an  international  federa- 
tion, whatever  may  be  its  exact  form,  will  have  to  be  based  upon  an 
international  constitution  in  the  shape  of  a  collective  treaty  between 
the  nations,  just  as  our  country,  as  a  whole,  is  based  upon  a  national 
constitution.  It  will  have  to  be  a  constitution  guaranteeing  to  the 
various  nations  their  prime  necessaries  of  existence,  the  freedom  of 
the  seas,  the  freedom  of  trade  and  commerce,  the  freedom  of  water- 
ways, the  security  of  each  individual  nation  or  nationality,  and  it  will 
have  to  do  that  by  a  concrete  organization  which  must  include  some 
instrumentality — a  court  or  a  board  for  the  adjudication  of  all  inter- 
national disputes. 

If  ever  proof  was  required  of  the  absolute  futility,  as  well  as  the 
criminality  of  settling  international  disputes  by  the  force  of  arms,  this 
unfortunate  war  has  furnished  that  proof. 

The  world  will  learn  after  this  war  that  the  only  way  to  adjust 
rationally  and  clearly  international  disputes  is  by  an  appeal  to  reason 
— by  an  appeal  to  justice — not  by  an  appeal  to  brute  force. 

And  when  we  speak  of  an  international  Court  of  Justice,  we  do 
not  have  in  view  anything*  like  the  League  for  the  Enforcement  of 
Peace,  based  on  armed  military  strength.  By  no  means!  There  are 
other  and  more  efficient  methods  of  maintaining  peace  without  physical 
force.  You  know,  each  one  of  you,  of  a  number  of  organizations, 
voluntarily  created  by  individuals,  which  have  the  power  to  force 
compliance  with  the  laws  and  rules,  without  resort  to  force.  Every 
trade  union  man  here  knows  that  if  he  is  fined,  he  will  pay  his  fine. 
Why?  Because  he  will  fear  suspension  or  expulsion  from  his  organ- 
ization, and  membership  in  his  organization  is  vital  to  him  in  his 
every-day  life.  So,  likewise,  in  an  organization  of  modern  nations, 
with  their  intimate  economic  inter-dependence,  the  mere  suggestion 
or  threat  of  an  expulsion  from  the  international  community  of  nations 
will  be  more  effective  than  any  army  could  possibly  be. 

Imagine  for  a  moment  a  modern  nation,  particularly  in  Europe, 
being  threatened  with  expulsion,  say  from  the  Postal  Union,  from 
telegraph  communication,  from  commerce,  from  interchange  of  com- 
modities, from  access  to  certain  courts,  from  access  to  certain  sources 
of  raw  material.  How  long  could  such  a  nation  exist  if  left  entirely 
alone  with  all  ties  between  other  nations  cut  ?    Not  twenty-four  hours» 

We  do  not  propose  an  international  police.  We  do  not  propose 
an  international  army.  We  do  not  believe  we  can  successfully  combat 
militarism  by  an  extended  system  of  militarism.  On  the  contrary,  we 
urge  in  our  program  the  abolition,  as  fast  as  possible,  immediately,  if 
possible,  of  all  armies  and  all  navies,  and  all  engines  of  destruction* 
And  when  we  advocate  disarmament — complete  disarmament,  if  pos- 
sible to-day —  we  are  not  indulging  in  Utopian  dreams.  At  no  time 
in  the  world's  history  have  conditions  been  so  favorable  to  disarma- 
ment, so  compelling  in  the  direction  of  disarmament,  as  they  will  be 
after  the  war. 

34 


There  will  be  two  good  reasons  why  the  governments  of  Europe 
will  be  eager  to  adopt  such  a  plan,  for  in  the  first  place,  to  maintain 
L-n  army,  men  are  required.  In  the  second  place,  to  maintain  an  army 
money  is  required.  The  governments  of  Europe  at  the  conclusion  of 
this  war  will  have  neither  men  nor  money  to  maintain  an  army.  But 
after  the  war  is  over  the  forces  of  manhood  will  essentially, 
vitally,  be  required  for  the  ordinary  pursuits  of  peace  and  industry.  ^ 
Where  will  there  be  the  hundreds  and  thousands  of  men  to  be  main-  ' 
tained  in  idleness,  in  standing  armies,  particularly  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  if  standing  armies  are  to  be  maintained  after  this  war  it  must  be 
done  upon  a  basis  so  colossal  as  to  exhaust  every  available  industrial 
force  in  each  country. 

'  Again,  bear  this  in  mind,  to-day  the  national  debt  of  the  leading 
countries  at  war  in  Europe  is  in  the  neighborhood  of  thirty  billion 
dollars.  Can  you  realize  what  that  means  ?  An  annual  interest  charge 
of  about  one  billion  and  a  half  dollars — six  billion  marks — seven  and 
a  half  billion  francs — in  interest  charges  alone,  annually,  not  taking 
into  account  any  payment  on  principal.  The  governments  of  Europe, 
when  the  war  is  over,  will  have  to  rebuild  their  countries.  They  will 
require  vast  sums  of  money  for  purposes  of  peaceful  reconstruction 
— more  money  than  they  required  before  the  war.  Where  will  these 
governments  raise  enough  money  to  pay  interest  on  these  tremendous 
war  debts,  which  are  growing  still  from  day  to  day,  to  pay  part  of 
the  principal  of  those  tremendous  war  debts,  to  defray  all  the  legiti- 
mate expense  of  administration,  and  still  raise  the  tremendous  sums 
of  money  additionally  required  for  the  maintainence  of  standing 
armies  or  large  navies?  I  maintain  that  even  if  the  governments,  or  j 
rather  the  peoples  of  the  various  governments,  repudiate  the  tremen-  ( 
dous  war  debts,  as  they  should,  even  then  I  say  there  will  be  no 
resources  left  in  the  various  nations  to  maintain  standing  armies.  The 
demand  for  disarmament  to-day  is  a  highly  practical  demand. 

And  there  is  another  reason  why  we  are  nearer  the  realization  of 
this  world  dream  now  than  ever  before.    Armies  always  have  been  the 
weapon  of  tyrannies.    Armies  always  have  meant  not  only  menace  to  ( 
peace  between  nations,  but  they  have  meant  menace  to  liberties  at 
home  for  every  nation.    And  the  peoples  of  Europe  are  awakening  to 
this  fact.     The  peoples  are  determined  to  take  the  administration  of 
their  own  affairs  into  their  own  hands,  and  to  guard  their  liberties  / 
against  tyranny.     There  will  never  again,  after  this  war,  be  a  large  ^ 
standing,  crushing  army  in  Russia,  because  the  Russian  people  will  no 
longer  want  to  crush  their  people  at  home  or  abroad.    And  the  example 
of  Russia  will  soon  be  followed  by  the  peoples  in  the  other  countries. 
After  the  war  the  world  will  be  governed  by  true  democrats,  by  the 
people  in  each  country,  and  that  will  of  necessity  mean  the  end  of  all 
militarism,  of  all  wars. 

iNow,  when  we  have  established  the  general  principles  upon  which 
a  lasting  peace  is  to  be  built,  the  settlement  of  the  immediate  disputes 
between  nations  is  no  longer  of  momentous  importance.  It  is  only  in 
the  light  of  these  general  terms  of  peace  that  we  can  comprehend  the 

35 


specific  terms  of  peace  advanced  now  by  the  liberal  and  radical  ele- 
ments all  over  the  v^orld,  and  most  tersely  expressed  by  revolutionary 
Russia :  no .  forcible  annexation — no  punitive  damages — free  national 
development  of  all  peoples. 

No  forcible  annexation — ^no  robbery  of  territory — no  robbery  of 
nations — no  enslavement  of  nations.  Is  that  really  such  a  traitorous, 
unpatriotic  demand  to  be  made  upon  the  powers  of  Europe,  upon  the 
powers  in  the  war  at  this  time..  No  indemnities — no  payment  of  tre- 
mendous sums  of  money  of  one  country  to  the  other?  Can  we  make 
any  other  demand  at  this  time  ?  Let  me  prophecy  here  that  when  we 
say  no  punitive  indemnities,  this  does  not  exclude  opportunity  for 
compensation  for  economic  losses  to  countries  willfully  invaded  and 
violated,  such  as  Belgium,  compensation  either  by  those  primarily 
responsible  for  it — I  mean  Germany — or  perhaps,  as  it  has  been  re- 
peatedly and  I  think  cogently  suggested,  by  all  nations  at  war.  Aside 
from  these  exceptions  which  do  not  disturb  the  general  principle,  can 
we  possibly  advance  any  other  general  terms  of  peace  than  one  that 
excludes  indemnities?  How  can  indemnities  be  raised  and  paid  now? 
Every  one  of  the  countries  at  war  is  impoverished.  Its  people  are 
starving  in  most  cases.  Even  without  payment  of  heavy  indem.nities, 
it  may  take  a  generation  before  they  will  rebuild  their  lands,  before 
they  will  be  able  to  resume  a  normal  condition  of  human  existence. 
Is  it  physically  possible  to  expect  those  peoples,  right  or  wrong — and 
they  are  all  of  them  in  a  way  wrong — to  raise  billions  and  billions 
more  to  pay  as  a  penalty  to  other  countries  ?  Where  will  it  come  from  ? 
We  speak  of  indemnities -usually  in  a  way  as  if  it  meant  that  Kaiser 
Wilhelm  II  would  take  out  his  private  Check  book  and  write  out  a 
check  to  the  other  countries,  and  we  would  say  to  him,  "Serves  you 
right.*'  Indemnities  do  not  come  from  the  governments.  Indemnities 
will  not  come  from  those  primarily  responsible  for  this  war.  Indemni- 
ties, if  they  are  levied,  will  come  by  heavy  taxation  upon  the  necessities 
of  the  life  of  the  people.  Indemnities  will  mean  more  starvation,  more 
suffering  for  all  nations  of  the  people,  and  indemnities  and  annexation 
of  territory  will  mean  grudges — ^will  mean  resentment — will  mean  the 
germs  of  subsequent  wars.  No  indemnities — no  annexation — implies 
practically  peace  without  victory — implies  practically  a  peace  which 
will  show  conclusively  to  the  peoples  of  all  the  world,  and  for  all  time 
to  come,  the  absolute  futility  of  this  war  and  of  all  wars. 

We  are  told  that  to  endorse  to-day  this  program  first  advanced 
by  the  Russian  revolution  is  working  into  the  hands  of  Germany.  It 
is  making  for  a  pro-German  peace.  Well,  it  was  not  so  long  ago  that 
the  Chief  Magistrate  of  this  country  made  the  following  statement, 
which  I  should  like  you  to  read  and  reread  and  repeat,  day  after  day, 
to  all  with  whom  you  discuss  terms  of  peace  or  war.  He  said,  "they 
(the  terms  of  peace  proposed  by  him)  implied  first  of  all  that  it  must 
be  a  peace  without  victory.  It  is  not  pleasant  to  say  this,"  said  the 
President.  "I  beg  that  I  may  be  permitted  to  put  my  own  interpreta- 
tion upon  it,  and  that  it  may  be  understood  with  no  other  interpreta- 

36 


tion  was  my  thought.  I  am  seeking  only  to  face  realities  and  to  face 
them  without  soft  concealments.  Victory  would  mean  peace  forced 
upon  the  loser — a  victorious  term  imposed  upon  the  vanquished.  It 
would  be  accepted  under  humiliation — under  duress — at  an  intolerable 
sacrifice,  and  would  leave  a  sting — a  resentment — a  bitter  memory, 
upon  which  all  peace  would  rest  not  permanently,  but  only  as  upon 
quicksand.  Only  peace  between  equals  can  last.  Only  peace,  the  very 
principle  of  which  is  equality  and  the  common  participation  in  a 
common  benefit." 

Now,  then,  I  am  asking  you — I  am  asking  the  people  of  the 
United  States — whether  anything  has  changed  in  the  situation  of  the 
world  since  these  wise  words  were  spoken?  Has  our  entrance  into 
the  war  changed  this  general,  universal,  human  principle,  so  eloquently 
laid  down  by  the  President  of  this  country?  Has  it  not  become  all  the 
more  imperative?  Has  it  not  become  all  the  more  vital,  because  the 
scene  of  conflict  has  been  extended  to  embrace  another  powerful  coun- 
try, and  to  hold  out  the  prospect  of  another  indefinite  prolongation  of 
this  war?  From  the  point  of  view  of  lasting,  of  durable  peace,  we  can 
paraphrase  the  statement  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and 
say.  We  are  faced  by  two  alternatives :  Peace  without  a  victory,  but 
a  lasting,  durable  peace,  or  Victory  without  Peace,  without  a  durable 
peace  at  any  rate. 

Finally,  in  our  program,  we  call  upon  our  administration  to  state 
definitely  and  concretely  its  terms  of  peace.  We  call  upon  our  admin- 
istration to  induce  our  allies  to  state  their  terms  of  peace.  We  say 
if  this  is  done,  if  the  world  knows  what  we  are  fighting  for,  the  central 
powers  will  be  forced  to  state  their  terms  of  peace.  Not  only  that, 
but  they  will  be  forced  to  accept  our  terms  of  peace,  if  they  are  based 
upon  justice,  upon  equity,  upon  the  principles  of  democracy  and  last- 
ing peace,  because  in  the  fong  run  the  central  powers  do  not  mean  the 
Hohenzollerns  and  the  Hapsburgs,  because  in  the  long  run  the  central 
powers  consist  of  masses  of  people,  thinking,  feeling,  suflfering,  long- 
ing for  peace,  and  for  perpetual  peace,  just  as  we  do  here.  And  when 
these  people  discover  that  we  are  holding  out  to  them  and  to  the  world 
terms  of  peace  which  imply  no  humiliation  and  no  punishment,  but 
which  imply  a  guarantee  of  permanent  peace,  if  the  Hohenzollerns 
and  Hapsburgs  stand  in  the  way  of  accepting  such  terms,  the  people 
of  Germany,  of  Russia,  of  Austria,  will  see  to  it,  as  the  people  of 
Russia  have  seen  to  it  to-day,  that  their  government  is  destroyed  and 
democracy  enthroned. 

The  Executive  Secretary  read  the  following  resolution  presented 
by  Mr.  Shiplacoff  for  incorporation  in  the  platform  of  the  First 
American  Conference  for  Democracy  and  Terms  of  Peace: 

RESOLUTIONS  ON  SMALL  SUPPRESSED  NATIONS 

Whereas,  within  the  dominion  of  the  belligerent  countries,  there 
is  a  number  of  suppressed  smaller  nations,  which,  though  bearing  the 
burden  of  the  war  in  common  with  the  rest,  are  still  subject  to  in- 

37 


equities  imposed  upon  them  by  the  dominant  nations  of  their  respective 
countries,  and 

Whereas,  some  of  these  nations  are  deprived  of  their  civic  and 
political  rights;  be  it  therefore 

Resolved,  that  the  First  American  Conference  for  Democracy 
AND  Terms  of  Peace  expresses  itself  in  opposition  to  this  state  of  af- 
fairs as  unjust  and  undemocratic. 

In  anticipation  of  a  treaty  of  peace  among  the  warring  nations, 
this  Conference  urges  the  government  of  the  United  States  to  use  its 
good  offices  in  behalf  of  these  submerged  nationalities,  and  to  demand 
for  them  the  enjoyment  of  equal  civic  and  political  rights  with  the  rest 
of  the  people  of  their  respective  countries ;  also,  wherever  practicable, 
the  right  of  local  independence  and  full  opportunity  for  cultural  de- 
velopment. 

Professor   Wm.    I.    Hull,    Professor    of    International    Relations, 
Swarthmore  College,  Pa. :  Entangling  Alliances. 

Madam  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen: 

George  Washington,  whose  name  and  memory  are  revered  also 
in  New  York  City  had  some  very  serious  and  wise  words  to  say  to 
the  American  people,  as  to  the  danger  and  the  wrong  of  entering  into 
entangling  alliances.  As  a  student  to  some  extent  of  European  history, 
George  Washington  knew  of  the  many  foolish,  wicked,  will-of-the- 
wisp  chases  which  had  been  engaged  in  under  the  banner  of  entangling 
alliances — alliances  of  Great  Britain  with  Prussia,  and  then  the  alliance 
of  Great  Britain  with  France,  the  alliance  of  France  with  Prussia 
against  Austria,  the  alliance  of  France  with  Austria  against  Prussia. 
It  is  a  perfect  kaleidoscope  of  history  when  we  attempt  to  follow  those 
efforts  to  achieve  international  objects,  by  means  of  entangling 
alliances. 

But  the  entangling  alliances  which  George  Washington  could  have 
known  of  are  utterly  insignificant  in  comparison  with  the  entangling 
alliances  possible  in  this  twentieth  century.  With  the  increasing  com- 
plexity of  civilized  life,  with  the  increasing  complexity  especially  of 
economic  life,  there  are  invisible  entangling  alliances,  which  have 
stretched  out  their  arms  like  some  mighty  octopus  and  gripped  every 
nation  within  them.  Such  entangling  alliances  are  illustrated  by  the 
armament  trusts,  for  example,  which  find  their  foothold  and  their 
strength  in  every. great  nation,  and  whose  purpose  in  life  it  is  to  in- 
crease the  demand  and  supply  the  demand  for  increasing  armaments. 
The  entangling  alliances  which  have  led  the  promoters  in  every  great 
country  to  exploit  the  resources  of  backward  peoples,  which  have 
built  up  these  huge  colonial  imperialistic  empires — these  things  are  the 
chestnuts  which  the  nations  of  this  twentieth  century  are  asked  to  pull 
out  of  the  fire  for  each  other. 

I  very  much  wish  that  the  wisdom  of  a  Washington  could  give 
expression  to  the  danger,  the  folly,  the  wickedness  of  entering  into 

38 


entangling  alliances  in  this  twentieth  century,  and  the  student  of  the 
years  immediately  preceding  this  present  war  is  impressed  very  forci- 
bly by  the  fact  that  the  war  was  foreshadowed  and  made  imperative 
by  the  building  up  of  mighty  entangling  alliances.  The  triple  alliance 
on  the  one  hand,  the  Entente  Cordiale  on  the  other — these  are  the 
mighty  opposing  forces  lined  up  against  each  other,  armed  to  the 
teeth,  which  have  made  this  war  inevitable  and  unparalleled  in  fright- 
fulness  in  all  history.  Is  it  possible  that  the  United  States  of  America 
is  going  to  consider  for  a  moment  entering  into  any  such  partial  en- 
tangling, unholy  alliances  as  are  represented  across  the  ocean? 

Another  reason  why  we  should  keep  out  of  entangling  alliances 
is  that  the  world  is  on  a  new  pathway  which  differs  from  excessive 
nationalism  on  the  one  hand,  and  partial  inimical  alliances  on  the  other. 
For  the  first  time  in  human  history  the  nations  of  the  world  joined 
hands  at  The  Hague  in  1899  and  1907  and  together  unanimously  they 
took  one  step  in  advance — a  short  and  feebk  step  thus  far,  but  the 
fact  that  they  have  taken  it  and  taken  it  together  has  made  of  this 
twentieth  century  a  new  era  in  human  history.  This  awful  war  has 
threatened  that  new  era.  I  believe  that  in  spite  of  it,  beyond  it,  the 
great  task  of  international  organization  will  proceed  upon  its  course. 

As  Mr.  Hillquit  has  suggested,  this  internationalism  of  our  time 
must  be  more  than  a  political  and  judicial  understanding  and  plan  of 
operation.  It  must  include  also  an  economic  and  an  intellectual  under- 
standing and  I  would  add  to  his  words  my  conviction  that  there  must 
be  built  up  a  great  international  public  opinion,  that  the  peoples  of  the 
world  must  not  only  know  and  appreciate  each  other,  as  we  are  learn- 
ing here  in  America  to  understand  and  appreciate  each  other,  but  they 
must  enlighten  and  organize  a  common,  international  public  opinion, 
which  shall  reach  around  the  world  and  support  upon  its  pillars  the 
international  organization  and  the  economic  co-operation  which  we 
hope  for  in  the  future. 

I  have  great  faith,  even  in  these  days,  when  military  power  has 
cast  its  protean  shadow  across  every  land,  in  the  other  forces  of  our 
twentieth  century  civilization  and  among  those  other  forces  is  the 
invincible  power  of  an  enlightened  and  organized  public  opinion.  That 
is  the  greatest  power  in  our  own  republic.  Have  you  ever  stopped  to 
consider  that  upon  that  single  support  alone  stands  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States — at  least  in  its  relations  to  the  forty-eight  States 
of  the  Union.  As  far  as  individuals  are  concerned,  it  has  at  its  dis- 
posal a  police  power,  and  ultimately  a  military  power,  but  that  is  not 
the  case  as  far  as  the  sovereign  states  of  this  union  are  concerned. 
In  its  relations  with  them  it  can  look  and  does  look  only  to  the  power 
of  public  opinion,  and  yet  that  apparently  helpless  court,  which  rests 
solely  upon  the  despised  power  of  public  opinion,  has  successfully 
adjudicated  more  than  seventy  disputes  between  the  states  of  this 
union;  243  international  disputes  have  been  settled  by  arbitration 
tribunals,  and  in  not  one  single  instance  has  the  award  of  these  tri- 
bunals been  disputed.  The  permanent  court  of  arbitration  established 
in  The  Hague  in  1899  has  settled  fifteen  disputes  between  the  nations, 

39 


and  yet  these  tribunals,  like  the  Supreme  Court,  rest  solely  upon  the 
power  of  public  opinion.  Do  not  let  us  despair.  There  are  great 
twentieth  century  forces,  superior  in  every  respect  to  the  forces  of  the 
army  and  the  navy,  and  it  is  to  these  powers  that  we  give  our  allegiance. 

In  closing,  I  should  like  to  call  to  your  attention  for  a  moment  a 
plan  in  which  I  am  personally  very  much  interested — a  plan  which  it 
seems  to  me  should  be  adopted  immediately  and  put  into  practice 
during  this  present  war.  For  some  weeks  before  the  war  began  it  was 
my  task  to  endeavor  to  impress  upon  the  Congress  and  the  President 
the  plan  of  an  International  Commission  of  Inquiry  and  Conciliation, 
which  would  thrash  out,  frankly  and  fully,  the  differences  which  ex- 
isted between  the  United  States  and  Germany,  and  also  the  differences 
which  existed  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain.  I  had 
proceeded  far  in  its  promotion,  when  I  discovered  that  these  differ- 
ences were  not  the  real  causes  of  the  war.  If  these  misunderstandings 
alone  had  been  the  causes  of  this  war,  they  could,  and  I  believe  they 
would,  have  been  settled  by  an  International  Commission  of  Inquiry 
and  Conciliation,  but  we  had  other  aims  in  view  and  the  plan  was  not 
adopted.  Now  we  are  in  the  war.  It  is  prophesied  on  every  hand 
that  this  war,  unlike  all  other  wars,  is  to  be  a  war  of  daylight  and  not 
of  darkness.  Can  we  help  to  prevent  it  from  becoming  a  war  of 
darkness?  Can  we  urge  upon  our  government  and  through  it  upon 
the  government  of  the  other  powers  which  are  fighting — ^the  central 
powers- — the  appointment  of  an  International  Commission,  which  shall 
follow  up  the  victorious  armies  and  bring  to  bear  upon  the  operations 
of  those  armies  the  pitiless  light  of  publicity?  You  remember  those 
unspeakable  atrocities  which  were  committed  at  the  time  of  the  march 
of  the  Allied  armies  to  Peking.  You  remember  the  unspeakable  atroci- 
ties which  were  committed  in  the  first  and  second  Balkan  wars.  We 
appointed  Commissions  of  Inquiry  after  those  atrocities  had  been  com- 
mitted and  they  have  reported  upon  the  frightful  deeds  which  were 
committed  by  the  so-called  civilized  armies  of  western  Europe.  In 
the  Peking  expedition  our  own  country  was  represented,  though  we 
hope  not  in  the  atrocities.  Is  it  not  possible  that  before  such  atrocities 
are  committed,  an  International  Commission  should  follow  in  the  wake 
of  the  advancing  armies? 

I  believe  that  such  an  International  Commission  could  fulfill  an- 
other very  useful  purpose.  We  are  supposed  to  be  in  this  war  for 
international  reasons,  and  not  for  the  extension  of  national  ambitions. 
We  hope  that  some  of  those  knotty  outstanding  problems  of  European 
politics,  like  the  disposition  of  Constantinople  and  the  Dardanelles, 
for  example,  will  be  solved  in  an  international  way,  and  that  no  one 
of  the  great  powers  shall  be  permitted  to  add  an  indefinite  amount  of 
the  earth's  territory  and  population  to  its  already  overgrown  dimen- 
sions. Would  it  not  facilitate  the  internationalization  of  those  lands, 
if  at  the  end  of  the  war  they  shall  be  controlled  by  an  "International 
Commission,  instead  of  by  a  victorious  army  of  any  one  nation?  May 
I  appeal  to  this  conference,  then,  to  challenge,  to  test  the  idealism 
which  our  own  country  and  the  others  have  professed  in  their  conduct 

40 


of  this  war,  or  rather  to  help  our  country  and  the  others  to  reaHze  the 
high  ideals  which  they  profess  in  this  particular,  amongst  others  in 
the  name  of  justice,  and  of  our  poor  common  humanity,  upon  whom 
the  weights  of  this  awful  war  are  bearing  in  such  frightful  ways. 


LiNDLEY  M.  Keasbey,  Professor  of  Political  Science,  University  of 
Texas :  Democratization  of  Diplomacy. 

The  question  of  the  Democratization  of  Diplomacy  is  to  my  mind 
the  great  question  of  the  day,  but  the  democratization  of  diplomacy 
will  not  come  until  we  have  democratized  our  state.  There  is  no 
confusion,  it  seems  to  me.  at  the  present  time  greater  than  the  con- 
fusion in  all  our  minds  between  the  state  and  the  government.  We 
are  quite  satisfied  in  America  with  a  democratic  government,  not 
realizing  that  a  democratic  government  can  be  run  by  a  plutocratic 
state.  My  friends,  our  government  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  the 
political  machine — it  is  the  engine  that  you  should  look  to,  the  engine 
which  generates  political  power.  In  all  ages  of  the  world  there  are 
three  productive  powers — labor,  land,  and  capital.  Now,  in  the  Golden 
Age,  the  age  of  the  philosophers'  natural  state,  the  most  important 
productive  power  was  labor.  Why?  Because  the  land  was  free. 
Nobody  attached  any  importance  to  the  land.  Why  not  capital? 
Because  capital  was  not  in  existence.  Therefore,  people  attached  the 
greatest  importance  to  labor.  Therefore,  strong  men  and  wise  men 
ruled  over  the  world  in  those  early  days.  It  was  a  day  when  man  was 
the  measure  of  all  things,  and  you  notice  that  the  state  at  that  time 
was  comparatively  a  democracy  or  an  aristocracy  of  talent,  and  the 
diplomacy  corresponded.  Ambassadors  of  those  days  were  ambassa- 
dor?'of  strong  men,  or  ambassadors  of  wise  men. 

Then  there  came  the  time  when  the  surface  of  the  earth  was 
appropriated  by  these  very  strong  men,  the  warriors,  and  by  these 
very  wise  men,  the  priests,  until  the  land  became  appropriated,  and 
therefore  rose  in  value.  Through  all  the  feudal  ages,  land  was  the 
paramount  productive  power — not  man,  but  land,  was  then  the  measure 
of  all  things,  and  it  was  from  land  that  sovereign  political  power  was 
derived,  and  sovereign  political  powers  of  the  world  then  or  the  feudal 
governments  went  into  war  for  land,  the  paramount  productive  power. 

But  in  the  course  of  the  feudal  days,  men  came  to  differentiate 
dift'erent  occupations,  to  introduce  markets  and  money  into  the  world. 
At  that  time  the  commercial  era  succeeded  the  proprietary  period  and 
a  new  productive  power  came  into  the  world,  capital — commercial 
power,  which  on  the  one  side  of  the  market,  as  you  know,  is  selling 
power,  and  on  the  other  side  of  the  market  is  purchasing  power,  sell- 
ing power  embodied  in  goods  and  services,  purchasing  power  em- 
bodied in  coin  and  credit  instruments.  In  the  early  days  selling  power 
was  paramount,  the  merchants  and  the  manufacturers  and  the  farmers 
of  our  commercial  era  have  made  purchasing  power  the  paramount 
power,  and  you  have  the  rule  of  the  money  men.     Now,  if  you  have 

41 


your   selling  power  and  your  purchasing   power   equitably   divided 
among  the  citizens,  then  you  have  a  democracy. 

But  suppose  the  great  trusts  combine  and  monopolize  selling 
power,  to  the  extent  that  selling  power  is  the  sovereign  power  of  this 
country.  Suppose  the  purchasing  power  has  become  paramount — 
even  superior  to  selling  power.  Suppose  at  the  present  time  this  pur- 
chasing power  is  all  thrown  into  the  hands  of  a  great  money  trust — 
then  they,  too,  exercise  sovereign  political  power,  and  that  is  exactly 
what  they  are  doing  everywhere  in  the  world.  In  other  words,  capital 
has  become  the  paramount  productive  power — selling  power  and  pur- 
chasing power — therefore  it  exercises  sovereignity  and  it  controls  both 
these  powers,  and  we  have  gone  far  away  from  our  individual  democ- 
racy toward  our  modern  plutocracy. 

How  can  we  avoid  all  this?  As  simply  as  can  be.  All  we  have 
to  do  is  to  advance  out  of  the  commercial  era  into  the  social  state.  Now, 
in  the  social  state,  my  friends,  sovereign  power  will  not  proceed  from 
any  one  of  these  three  productive  powers.  It  will  not  proceed  from 
labor,  land,  or  capital.  Whence  then  will  it  proceed?  It  will  proceed 
from  the  common  center  around  which  labor,  land  and  capital  are 
co-operatively  combined  and  we  are  well  on  our  way  in  this  journey. 
The  social  state  is  to  be  introduced  first  through  the  organization  of 
labor — the  negative  organization  of  labor,  industrially  and  agricul- 
turally, to  resist  the  exactions  of  capital,  and  oppose  the  restriction  of 
land.  This  negative  organization  of  labor  is  leading  already  in  Europe 
and  to  some  extent  in  our  country  toward  the  positive  organization  of 
labor.  By  this  I  mean  two  co-operative  steps  along  agricultural  and 
industrial  lines.  This  agricultural  and  industrial  co-operation  will  lead 
us  from  the  organization  of  labor  toward  the  progressive  socialization 
of  capital,  and  eventually  lead  toward  the  final  liberation  of  land. 

Now  suppose  labor  is  organized,  capital  is  socialized,  and  the  land 
is  liberated.  Whence  then  would  the  sovereign  power  proceed  ?  From 
the  common  center  around  which  labor,  land  and  capital  are  co-opera- 
tively combined.  That  is  the  vision  of  the  future  that  I  see.  At  the 
present  time,  on  the  battlefields  of  Europe,  you  have  exploitative 
capitalism  proceeding  along  the  lines  of  conquest  and  war,  like  colonial 
expansion.  You  have  productive  capitalism,  proceeding  along  the  lines 
of  commerce  and  peaceful  colonial  expansion,  and  you  have  the  great 
force  of  revolutionary  social  democracy,  working  toward  this  co-opera- 
tive ideal,  which  I  have  tried  to  present  to  you  as  solving  this  peace 
problem.  Then  we  shall  have  to  organize  the  social  democratic  forces 
and  come  to  reasonable  terms  with  productive  capitalism  and  exploita- 
tive capitalism.  It  is  no  use  standing  and  blackguarding  things  of  the 
past.  Take  exploitative  capitalism  as  it  is  to-day,  and  the  great  revolu- 
tionary, social,  democratic  movement  as  it  is  to-day,  and  proceed  along 
the  same  reasonable  line  wherever  we  can  come  to  terms  of  peace, 
which  shall  be,  as  we  hope,  a  durable  peace. 

42 


Victor  L.  Berger,  former  Congressman,  Milwaukee:  The  War  and 
High  Finance. 

This  war  to  me,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  is  the  Morganic  marriage — 
an  illegal  marriage  betw^een  Lombard  Street,  London,  and  Wall  Street, 
New  York.  The  issues  are  illegitimate  war  babies  down  in  Wall 
Street,  and  every  time  you  mention  peace,  one  of  these  war  babies  is 
ready  to  die.  This  is  not  a  popular  war — in  the  Middle  West.  No 
matter  what  the  papers  tell  you,  it  is  exceedingly  unpopular.  The 
South  is  at  least  very  lukewarm.  The  Far  West  wants  no  war.  The 
war  seems  to  be  popular  only  around  Wall  Street,  New  York. 

The  trouble  with  our  country  is  this — that  we  have  now  a  rubber 
stamp  Congress.  We  have  a  Congress  that  has  abdicated.  The  muni- 
tion workers  were  bright  enough  to  get  behind  the  Democratic  party. 
They  always  owned  the  Republican  party  and  now  they  have  both  of 
them.  We  have  a  Congress  that  is  so  absolutely  under  the  thumb  of 
the  administration,  that  this  Congress  is  ready  to  send  Elihu  Root  to 
Russia  to  teach  Russia  democracy.  The  only  party  that  really  voices 
opposition  to  it — opposition  is  always  necessary  in  every  democracy — 
the  only  party  that  voices  opposition  everywhere — is  the  Socialist 
party. 

We  are  going  to  abolish  the  militarism  of  Germany  by  sending 
over  two  million  men  to  show  them  what  is  what.  We  are  going  to 
shoot  democracy  into  Germany,  until  we  have  no  democracy  left  at 
home. 

Why  is  the  war,  and  how  long  is  it  to  last  ?  Is  it  to  last  until  we 
have  a  German  republic?  And  what  kind  of  a  republic?  A  Morganic 
republic?  A  democracy  with  a  Morgan  stamp  on,  or  a  social  democ- 
racy? You  know,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  that  the  only  democracy 
possible  in  Europe  to-day  is  a  social  democracy,  that  Mr.  Morgan 
and  Mr.  Schwab  and  Mr.  John  D.  Rockefeller  and  all  of  the  editors 
of  the  New  York  and  Milwaukee  and  Chicago  papers  would  like  a 
social  democracy  a  great  deal  less  than  they  like  the  Kaiser.  In  case 
they  should  have  a  social  democracy  to-morrow,  you  would  find  that 
the  New  York  Times  would  have  editorials  about  sending  an  army 
over  there  to  keep  law  and  order. 

I  have  seen  it  suggested  in  New  York  papers  and  in  Chicago  papers 
that  it  might  be  a  good  thing  to  have  a  dictatorship  in  Russia — that 
it  might  be  a  good  thing  to  put  in  Grand  Duke  Nicholas  as  the  con- 
stitutional Czar  of  Russia.  That  is  how  we  are  going  to  fight  for 
democracy. 

We  ought  to  know  what  our  government  intends  to  do.  We  must 
know  it.  We  are  paying  the  price  in  blood  and  in  money.  So  far  we 
have  given  away  three  billion  dollars  with  astonishing  rapidity. 

Just  imagine  what  you  could  do  with  three  billion  dollars.  With 
three  billion  dollars  you  could  support  three  million  families  this 
winter  in  great  style.  You  could,  for  three  billion  dollars,  establish 
about  three  hundred  thousand  schools  in  this  country.  For  three 
billion  dollars  you  could  build  the  finest  roads  all  over  the  country. 
You  could  duplicate  the  entire  railroad  system  for  three  billion  dollars. 

43 


You  could  pension  every  man  and  woman  in  this  country  older  than 
45  with  a  good  deal  less  than  three  billion  dollars.  Yet  if  you  suggest 
any  of  these  things,  then  you  are  a  traitor.  You  are  at  least  not 
practical.  But  to  give  away  three  billion  dollars  for  war  purposes, 
that  is  very  practical. 

We  ought  to  know  to  what  end  we  are  to  stay  in  this  war.  If  we 
do  not  get  any  answer  we  are  likely  to  have  food  riots  in  New  York, 
Chicago,  Philadelphia,  Milwaukee,  San  Francisco,  etc.,  and  we  will 
stay  in  this  war  until  our  American  people  follow  in  the  footsteps  of 
the  Russian  people  and  establish  a  Social  Democracy. 

Emily  G.  Balch,  of  Massachusetts :  Terms  of  Peace. 

Is  not  the  lesson  of  this  war  that  the  problem  is  all  one — that  the 
economic  and  social  problem  at  home  is  part  of  the  war  problem,  and 
the  war  problem  is  a  part  of  the  economic  and  social  problem  that 
faces  us  in  our  domestic  affairs  ?  The  only  difference  is  that  the  rela- 
tions between  nations  are  even  one  stage  more  backward  than  those 
within  the  nation.  But  we  have  economic  competition,  as  lawless  in 
one  place  as  the  other. 

There  is  no  negative  solution  to  such  a  state  of  affairs.  The 
statement,  "No  annexation,"  *'No  indemnity,"  is  negative  in  form  but 
positive  in  content.  The  internationalism  which  we  must  build  up  is 
the  internationalism  of  effective  co-operation  between  friendly  nations. 
It  is  no  solution  to  have  countries  sit  about  a  Hague  table,  just  kept 
from  flying  at  one  another's  throats  by  obligatory  arbitration,  and 
nothing  more  than  that.  It  is  not  peace  when  people  simply  do  not 
murder  one  another  on  sight,  while  their  whole  relation  is  one  of 
hostile  competition.    It  is  peace  only  if  there  is  friendly  co-operation. 

So,  with  regard  to  indemnities,  we  have  seen  in  1870  how  cruel, 
how  senseless  and  ineffective,  is  a  military  indemnity  levied  with  the 
purpose  of  weakening  and  crushing  a  hostile  nation.  The  same  thing 
was  seen  in  Germany  in  the  Napoleonic  wars.  The  war  ravaged 
countries  are  the  concern  of  all  the  world.  No  human  mind  can  fully 
conceive  their  misery.  The  only  conceivable  solution  which  is  toler- 
able is  that  all  the  countries  should  see  to  it  that  there  is  friendly, 
scientific  rehabilitation  of  all  the  war  ravaged  countries. 

You  cannot  run  the  world  on  the  principle  of  every  man  for  him- 
self and  of  every  nation  for  itself.  Things  only  cohere  by  cohesion. 
People  only  co-operate  by  working  together.  They  only  live  side  by 
side  in  happiness  by  having  a  common  aim  and  pursuing  it  in  common. 
Such  a  state  of  things  may  seem  remote  and  ideal.  It  is  not  remote 
in  essence.  It  is  ideal,  but  only  as  all  right  relations  are  ideal.  And 
it  is  only  as  it  is  the  firm  and  deliberate  and  intelligent  aim  of  the 
plain  people  of  every  democratic  country  in  the  world,  that  it  can  be 
realized. 


44 


Third  Session 

Wednesday,  May  30,  8.30  P.  M. 

Chairman,  James  H.  Maurer,  President  of  the  Pennsylvania  State 

Federation  of  Labor. 

James  H.  Maurer:  Labor  Legislation  and  the  War. 

Mr.  Chairman,  Men  and  Women :  "  i 

The  subject  for  discussion  and  action  to-night  is  that  of  the 
position  of  labor  and  capital  during  the  war,  and  labor  laws,  or  the 
protection  of  them.  I  believe  it  is  pretty  well  understood  by  all  of 
you  that  war  had  scarcely  been  declared  or  diplomatic  relations  be- 
tween this  country  and  Germany  broken  before  there  was  a  demand 
for  the  suspension  of  labor  laws.  New  York  State,  I  understand,  has 
suspended  a  good  many  of  them.  In  my  own  State — Pennsylvania — 
the  interests  have  been  very  busy  trying  to  convince  us  that  we  should 
suspend  our  labor  laws.  It  so  happens  that  I  am  also  a  member  of 
the  Pennsylvania  Assembly.  In  Pennsylvania  they  introduced  a  bill 
to  repeal  the  Child  Labor  Laws  of  our  State,  or  suspend  them  during 
the  period  of  the  war,  another  bill  to  suspend  the  Women's  Labor 
Laws  during  the  period  of  the  war,  then  a  blanket  bill  to  suspend  all 
the  Labor  Laws  during  the  period  of  the  war,  and  another  bill  to 
suspend  the  full  crew  law  during  the  period  of  the  war. 

The  blanket  bill  to  suspend  all  Labor  Laws  says  upon  request  of  the 
Committee  of  National  Defense,  the  Governor  shall  by  proclama- 
tion suspend  the  labor  laws  of  the  State.  That  is  the  shape  in  which 
the  bill  came  to  us. 

The  bill  further  provides  that  the  Governor  may,  if  he  feels  so 
disposed,  have  the  Labor  Commission — the  Industrial  Commission  of 
our  State — investigate  and  find  out  whether  it  is  necessary  to  suspend 
a  labor  law — not  the  labor  laws  as  a  whole,  but  a  labor  law  afifecting 
a  given  industry,  and  then  on  two  different  days  the  public  in  the 
locality  where  the  labor  law  may  be  suspended  is  to  be  notified  through 
the  newspapers  that  there  will  be  a  public  hearing  on  this  thing,  and 
then  there  will  be  a  public  hearing  and  we  can  appear  and  protest,  and 
the  other  side  can  favor,  and  then  the  commission  is  to  report  to  the 
Governor  and  recommend,  if  it  sees  fit,  the  suspension  of  the  labor  law 
affecting  that  particular  industry,  in  that  particular  county,  and  the 
Governor  if  he  favors  the  recommendation  of  that  committee  is  then 
to  notify  the  chief  in  the  Department  of  Labor  and  Industry,  who  shall 
notify  the  firm  concerned  that  the  labor  law  stands  suspended  in  their 
particular  concern  for  a  certain  period,  but  at  no  time  can  the  period 
be  longer  than  the  duration  of  the  war.  That  will  only  afifect  one 

45 


employer,  or  one  concern.  If  it  affects  a  hosiery  mill,  it  will  affect 
only  that  one — ^not  the  one  across  the  street,  or  down  the  street,  or  in 
the  same  county.  If  others  want  the  labor  law  repealed,  they  have  to 
go  through  that  same  trouble  again,  and  we  hope  by  the  time  they  get 
over  the  State  the  war  will  be  over.  That  is  as  well  as  we  can  amend 
it  to  be  inoperative.  However,  we  will  oppose  that  bill  just  the  same 
and  take  no  chances.  The  Full  Crew  Repeal  was  introduced  in  the 
Senate  and  was  passed  last  Thursday.  The  argument  to  have  a  Full 
Crew  Law  suspended  was  on  account  of  the  war.  Everything  they  do 
nowadays  is  on  account  of  the  war.  I  had  a  bill  up  to  have  one  of 
our  cities  of  the  third  class  go  into  the  farming  business.  They  de- 
feated my  bill  on  account  of  the  war. 

Another  man  had  a  bill  up  to  allow  foxes  to  run  loose,  to  give 
them  the  protection  of  the  law  in  certain  months.  The  man  who 
sponsored  that  bill  enlisted  and  went  to  the  front  up  at  Fort  Niagara 
to  train  to  be  a  soldier,  and  when  his  bill  came  up,  the  speaker  gave 
up  his  position,  went  down  on  the  floor,  and  took  the  floor  in  defense 
of  the  Fox  Bill,  and  what  do  you  think  he  said.  He  said,  "Gentle- 
men, I  want  you  to  remember  that  the  sponsor  of  this  meritorious 
legislation"  (mind  you,  a  bill  allowing  the  foxes  to  eat  up  our  chickens 
these  hard  times)  "is  up  at  the  front  fighting  the  battles  of  this  coun- 
try, and  it  behooves  us,  therefore,  to  pass  this  bill  in  honor  of  the  man 
at  the  front."  But  as  to  the  Full  Crew  Bill,  the  representatives  of  the 
railroads  and  the  Chambers  of  Commerce  of  all  the  cities  and  of  the 
State,  representing  the  interests  favorable  to  the  suspension  of  the  Full 
Crew  Law,  were  there.  One  speaker  said,  "This  law,  if  it  is  sus- 
pended, will  give  us  two  thousand  more  men,"  and  he  said,  "We  need 
them  in  France  to  build  railroads  there.  Suspend  the  law  and  give  us 
these  two  thousand  men,  and  we  will  take  them  to  France,  and  there 
we  will  construct  the  railroads  that  were  torn  up." 

Now,  you  know  railroad  men  do  not  build  railroads ;  they  run  them 
when  they  are  built.  Now,  another  man  said,  "We  are  not  going  to 
lay  these  two  thousand  men  off  if  you  pass  the  Suspension  Bill,  but 
we  are  going  to  put  them  on  other  trains,  and  we  will  run  more  trains. 
We  cannot  handle  the  traffic  now,  because  we  cannot  get  men.  The 
men  are  going  to  the  front  to  follow  the  colors.  We  have  the  railroads 
and  we  have  not  got  the  men.  It  is  a  patriotic  duty,  gentlemen,  to 
suspend  this  law,  so  that  we  can  run  our  railroads."  Now,  strange 
that  they  want  these  men  to  run  these  railroads,  because  they  cannot 
run  enough  trains  with  the  men  they  have  got.  We  asked  the  gentle- 
man why  they  didn't  take  the  parlor  cars  and  take  the  seats  out  and 
make  day  coaches  out  of  them,  and  carry  so  many  more  passengers. 
We  asked  why  they  did  not  take  the  President's  car  and  make  him 
ride  with  the  common  passengers  and  prove  his  patriotism.  If  ever 
there  is  a  time  when  it  is  more  important  that  trains  should  be  properly 
manned  it  is  during  war  time.  They  are  using  cars  now  that  were 
discarded  and  worn  out  years  ago.  There  are  many  wrecks,  yet  on 
the  ground  of  patriotism  they  wish  to  take  away  the  men. 

46 


Friends,  I  did  not  intend  to  make  a  speech.  I  want  to  pave  the 
way  while  the  chairman  of  the  committee  is  getting  ready.  I  wish  to 
say  this :  England  has  tried  the  plan  of  discarding  the  labor  laws — 
they  worked  the  men  and  women  and  children  from  eighty-four  to 
eighty-eight  hours  a  week  and  seven  days  a  week — and  they  found  in 
time  that  month  after  month  the  output  was  getting  less.  They  investi- 
gated and  found  that  the  trouble  was  fatigue  among  the  workers.  They 
went  back  to  the  old  one  day  rest  out  of  seven  and  cut  the  hours  down 
to  no  more  than  sixty,  with  the  result  that  the  output  increased  with 
the  shorter  week  from  8  to  20  per  cent,  over  the  long  work  week. 

Many  employers  of  this  country  see  a  chance  to  make  more  profit 
on  account  of  the  war.  In  my  city  a  big  department  store  man  said  to 
an  acquaintance  of  mine  who  asked  when  she  was  going  to  get  her 
vacation  this  year :  "There  will  be  no  vacation  now,  my  child,  because 
we  are  at  war."  Then  he  said,  "They  are  going  to  pass  a  law  to 
suspend  all  labor  laws,  and  when  that  passes  we  will  have  no  little 
state  official  poking  his  nose  in  our  business  any  more.  Then  we  are 
going  to  keep  our  stores  open  every  night  of  the  week."  She  said, 
"Will  we  get  more  money  for  this?"  He  said,  "No,  our  taxes  will  be 
increased  on  account  of  the  war,  and  you,  who  work  for  us,  must  put 
in  extra  labor  to  make  up  the  taxes  that  we  pay." 

Dr.  Scott  Nearing,  Toledo,  Ohio,  Chairman  of  Committee  on  Indus- 
trial Standards: 

The  report  of  the  Committee  on  Economic  Standards  covers  four 
points  on  which  I  will  speak  briefly.  First  on  the  maintenance  of  labor 
standards,  second  on  the  question  of  the  cost  of  living,  third  on  the 
problem  of  taxation,  fourth  on  the  question  of  industrial  democracy. 
The  statement  regarding  labor  standards  is  as  follows :  The  long  strug- 
gle that  has  been  waged  to  reduce  hours,  to  raise  wages,  to  abolish 
child  labor,  to  protect  the  life,  limbs  and  health  of  the  wage  earners 
has  created  definite  minimum  labor  standards.  A  nation-wide  assault 
on  these  standards  is  now  in  progress.  The  labor  laws  are  being  sus- 
pended or  repealed.  Cheap  alien  labor  is  to  be  imported.  Women  are 
replacing  the  men  who  leave  for  the  front.  We  call  upon  the  working 
people  to  resist  this  assault  by  insisting  that  the  labor  laws  be  preserved 
and  enforced,  by  maintaining  the  rights  gained  through  the  labor 
movement — by  opposing  the  importation  of  cheap  alien  labor  and 
prisoners  of  war,  to  be  employed  in  American  industries,  and  by  in- 
sisting that  where  women  take  the  place  of  men,  they  receive  men's 
wages. 

In  the  first  place,  there  is  the  point  that  Mr.  Maurer  spoke  about, 
the  wiping  ofif  the  books  of  labor  standards  that  we  have  worked  a 
long  time  to  secure.  That  was  one  of  the  things  we  want  to  oppose. 
If  a  labor  standard  is  good  in  times  of  peace  it  is  doubly  good  in 
times  of  war. 

In  the  second  place,  we  foresaw  the  danger,  which  is  not  by  any 
means  a  fancied  one,  that  because  of  the  war,  contractors  would  tell 

47 


workers  "This  and  this  is  so;  now,  if  you  don't  do  so  and  so,  we  will 
report  the  matter  to  the  Commissary  Department  or  to  somebody  else." 
A  number  of  cases  were  brought  to  our  attention  where  that  has  al- 
ready happened.  Now,  if  certain  hours  and  certain  wages  and  certain 
working  conditions  which  the  workers  have  secured  through  years  of 
struggle  are  to  be  sacrificed  at  the  first  blush,  simply  because  there  is  a 
war  on,  it  would  only  be  necessary  when  the  workers  had  secured 
enough  standards  for  the  other  group  to  have  a  little  war,  and  they 
could  alter  the  labor  standards  and  start  the  workers  all  over  again 
on  another  generation  of  struggle.  So  we  suggest  the  extreme  im- 
portance, not  only  of  maintaining  labor  laws,  but  of  having  the  labor 
organizations  hold  the  ground  they  have  gained.  We  have  not  heard 
any  suggestion  that  the  interest  rate  be  cut.  We  have  not  heard  sug- 
gestion that  rents  be  reduced.  We  have  not  heard  any  suggestion  to 
slice  into  dividends,  except  through  a  surplus  profit  tax,  which  will 
take  one  little  iota  of  the  total  increased  war  profits.  They  are  not 
talking  of  cutting  into  the  standards  of  capital.  They  are  going  up. 
It  is  the  standards  for  labor  that  are  going  down.  W^hen  they  begin 
to  talk  about  reducing  the  interest  rate  and  reducing  rents  and  in 
other  ways  curtailing  the  returns  to  capital,  then  it  will  be  time  to 
talk  about  starving  and  otherwise  hampering  the  workers,  but  until* 
there  is  some  real  talk  of  cutting  capital  returns,  it  is  idle  and  foolish 
and  quite  undemocratic  to  talk  about  cutting  labor  Returns.  And  so 
we  urge  the  labor  organizations — the  labor  movement — to  stand  by 
the  ground  that  it  has  gained.    This  is  not  a  time  for  labor  to  retrench. 

In  the  third  place,  there  is  danger — we  do  not  know  how  great — 
that  Chinese  coolies,  Mexican  peons  and  military  prisoners  may  be 
imported  to  work  cheap.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  my  town  in  Toledo 
at  the  present  time  they  are  bringing  in  negroes  from  the  South  in 
large  numbers  to  work  cheap.  I  understand  that  they  have  done  the 
same  thing  in  St.  Louis  and  other  cities.  Now,  we  cannot  prevent 
the  shifting  of  labor  in  the  United  States,  but  we  felt  that  it  was  ex-. 
tremely  important  that  at  this  crisis  we  should  not  have  alien  labor — • 
coolie  labor,  Mexican  peon  labor,  military  prisoner  labor — brought  in  to 
reduce  wage  standards.  It  is  not  American!  It  is  not  democratic, 
and  this,  you  must  remember,  is  a  war  for  democracy. 

Then  in  the  fourth  place  the  women  are  being  called  upon  to  take 
the  men's  jobs.  Our  committee  had  no  objection  to  this,  but  we 
noticed  in  the  first  place  that  the  women  were  not  asked  to  take  the 
nice  jobs — the  bank  presidents  are  not  asking  women  in  to  take  their 
jobs.  The  corporation  officials — the  leaders  of  industry — are  not  ask- 
ing women  in  to  take  their  jobs,  but  women  are  asked  to  take  the 
cheap  jobs,  and  having  been  asked  to  take  the  cheap  jobs,  they  are 
asked  to  take  them  at  a  lower  price  than  the  cheap  men  who  preceded 
them  on  the  job.  We  insist  that  wherever  the  women  take  the  job 
that  was  held  by  the  men  they  get  the  same  wages  as  the  men  were 
receiving.  Those  are  the  four  points  that  we  desire  to  make  with 
regard  to  the  maintenance  of  labor  standards. 

48 


Our  second  point  deals  with  the  question  of  the  cost  of  living. 
We  want  it  to  be  particularly  understood  that  American  business  is 
exacting  this  from  the  American  people.  The  cost  of  living  has  been 
increased  until  it  is  undermining  existing  standards.  We  therefore 
demand  that  Congress  provide  forthwith  the  machinery  for  the  fixing 
of  maximum  prices  on  the  necessaries  of  life  and  minimum  wages, 
which  will  insure  health,  efficiency,  comfort  and  education.  All  of  the 
figures  which  have  come  to  hand  show  that  the  American  business 
world  has  reaped  unprecedented  harvest  out  of  the  world  crisis,  that 
the  1916  net  profits  show  a  level  never  before  met  in  American  busi- 
ness. In  other  words  the  war  has  increased  their  exploiting  or 
monetary  power  and  they  are  going  the  thing  to  the  limit. 

What  we  say  is  that  as  the  American  business  interests  are  spend- 
ing their  energy  to  gouge  the  American  people,  that  it  is  up  to  Con- 
gress, if  Congress  represents  the  American  people,  in  the  first  place 
to  fix  maximum  prices  and  in  the  second  place  to  state  minimum 
wages. 

In  the  third  place  we  say  taxation  of  the  necessaries  of  life  in- 
evitably reduces  the  standard  of  living.  We  therefore  demand  that 
none  of  the  revenue  required  for  the  prosecution  of  the  war  shall 
come  from  the  taxation  of  necessaries. 

In  the  fourth  place  we  made  the  following  statement :  ''Industrial 
plutocracy  makes  for  war.  Industrial  democracy  for  peace.  This  war 
brings  with  it  autocratic,  political  control  of  industry  in  the  interests 
of  the  ruling  classes.  The  American  people,  joining  hands  with  the 
new  democracy  of  Russia,  must  lay  the  basis  for  permanent  world 
peace  by  establishing  industrial  democracy."  This  last  plank  is  an 
extremely  important  one.  The  others  are  matters  of  immediate  detail, 
immediate  interest.  This  is  a  matter  of  ultimate  solution.  Now,  you 
know  and  I  know  that  the  only  place  in  the  world  to-day  where  they 
are  even  talking  industrial  democracy  in  serious  language  is  in  Russia. 
I  believe  one  of  the  New  York  papers  the  other  day  suggested  that 
the  Government  had  wisely  taken  some  of  the  labor  members  into  its 
Councils.  Now  the  facts  are  that  the  Soldiers'  and  Workingmen's 
delegates  have  forced  into  the  Russian  situation  something  that  neither 
the  United  States  nor  England,  nor  France,  nor  Germany,  nor  Aus- 
tria., nor  Japan,  nor  any  other  of  the  belligerent  governments  wanted 
there.  They  forced  in  this  proposition  of  industrial  democracy  and 
that  is  the  reason  we  said,  "Joining  hands  with  the  new  democracy  of 
Russia,"  because  as  we  looked  around  the  world  we  did  not  see  any- 
thing else  approaching  industrial  democracy  and,  by  the  way,  we 
do  not  see  anything  approaching  industrial  democracy  in  the  United 
States  either — don't  misunderstand  us  on  that  head.  The  American 
people  have  got  to  do  this  thing.  This  present  war  is  a  war  by  the 
intelligent,  educated,  enlightened  part  of  the  community,  against  the 
wishes  and  the  judgment  of  the  ignorant  part  of  the  community. 

I  was  talking  the  other  day  to  a  friend  and  he  said,  ^'Ignorance 
is  the  cause  of  the  war."    He  was  a  college  graduate  and  he  had  that 

49 


peculiar  type  of  intellectual  snobbery  engrained  in  his  nature  that  one 
gets  in  the  ordinary  American  college.  He  had  just  previously  re- 
lieved himself  of  the  statement  that  the  working  people  were  ignorant 
and  that  that  was  their  principal  trouble.  Then  I  asked  him  to  review 
the  history  of  the  United  States  for  the  past  two  years  and  give  an 
honest  answer  as  to  whether  the  agitation  for  war  had  come  from  the 
working  group  or  whether  it  had  come  from  the  enlightened  people 
who  have  had  the  advantage  of  high  school  and  college  training.  Well, 
he  was  rather  in  a  hole  as  you  can  readily  see. 

The  fact  is  that  our  school  system  is  a  propaganda  organization 
for  the  maintenance  of  the  present  order.  It  is  not  impartial.  It  is  not 
honest.  It  is  not  truth-seeking.  It  is  order-maintaining.  What  is  the 
primary  thing  in  the  schools?  It  is  discipline.  They  do  not  say  "Do 
what  is  right/'  they  say  "Do  what  you  are  told,"  "Mind !  obey  l"  Un- 
intelligent, unthinking,  unquestioning  obedience — that  is  the  big  major 
premise  of  American  education.  You  will  find  it  from  the  college 
right  through  to  the  kindergarten. 

What  I  feel  is  that  we  must  have  a  backfire  on  that  educational 
system  that  will  give  us  enough  intelligence  among  the  only  group  in 
the  community  who  really  know  anything — the  wage  earning  group — 
enough  intelligence  so  that  they  will  dQ  what  the  intelligent  wage- 
earning  group  in  Russia  has  just  done — put  it  up  to  the  other  people 
who  say  they  know  things,  and  who  really  do  not — put  it  up  to  them 
that  we  must  have  industrial  democracy  if  we  are  to  prevent  future 
wars.  When  I  say  that  the  working  people  know  things  I  mean  they 
have  the  knowledge  of  the  world.  We  know  how  to  exploit,  they 
how  to  produce.  We  exploit  them  of  a  part  of  their  product  and 
then  we  tell  ourselves  that  we  are  the  intelligent,  enlightened  and  bene- 
ficial part  of  the  community.  That  is  a  little  part  of  the  pantomime 
of  the  whole  silly  modern  game  that  we  have  been  pulling  off  in  the 
last  fifty  or  one  hundred  years. 

Our  idea  was  that  out  of  this  world  crisis — out  of  the  multitude 
of  things  that  we  have  been  learning  in  the  last  few  months  must  come 
industrial  democracy,  for  the  sake  of  the  world,  for  the  sake  of  the 
international  world,  the  whole  world,  not  our  little  particular  part,  for 
the  sake  of  the  people  of  the  world,  for  the  sake  of  the  civilization  of 
the  world,  for  the  sake  of  putting  in  the  scrap  pile  this  direct  action, 
that  they  have  been  pulling  off  in  Europe  during  the  last  two  and  a 
half  years  and  substituting  something  resembling  law  and  order  again 
on  the  face  of  civilization.  We  cannot  get  an  ordered,  coherent  so- 
ciety until  the  members  of  that  society  demand  it,  and  we  want  that 
demand  to  take  the  form  of  industrial  democracy,  because  the  thing 
that  is  conveyed  by  that  phrase  carries  more  than  any  other  thing  that 
we  include  for  the  amelioration  of  the  economic  part  of  our  lives,  both 
for  peace  and  human  well-being. 

Mrs.  Florence  Kelley  :  Labor  Standards  in  War  Time. 

I  think  it  is  a  safe  thing  for  each  of  the  speakers  to-night  to 
remind  ourselves  one  after  the  other  that  this  is  a  war  for  democracy 

50 


and  for  liberty.  We  have  had  a  strange  exhibit  at  Albany  this  year. 
I  don't  hesitate  to  speak  of  the  state  laws  of  New  York,  because  New 
York  is  the  greatest  of  all  industrial  states  in  this  union  and  because 
it  is  the  unhappy  practice  of  many  other  states  to  treat  us  not  as  we 
ougjht  to  be  treated,  as  a  horrible  warning,  but  alas,  as  an  example. 
The  exhibit,  the  singular  exhibit,  that  we  have  had  has  been  a  glowing, 
burning  zeal  on  the  part  of  the  officials — not  only  those  elected  to  the 
Senate  and  the  Assembly,  but  on  the  part  of  the  administrative  officials, 
both  those  who  represent  the  wage  earning  class  and  those  that  repre- 
sent the  exploiters,  to  break  down  the  labor  standards  which  have  been 
slowly  built  up  by  the  labor  and  .the  pain  of  over  thirty  years.  At  the 
beginning  of  the  Legislature,  before  the  war,  bills  were  introduced 
both  by  the  Industrial  Commission,  whose  chairman  is  Mr.  John 
Mitchel  and  whose  vice-chairman  is  Mr.  James  Lynch  of  the  printing 
trade,  with  a  majority  of  three  capitalists,  and  also  by  Mr.  Elon  Brown, 
representing  the  cannery  region,  to  break  down  the  whole  code. 

It  was  pointed  out  that  these  bills  would  relax  the  labor  laws  in 
regard  to  every  industry  in  the  state  except,  perhaps,  as  Commissioner 
Lynch  said,  the  single  exception  might  be  the  moving  picture  shows, 
because  perhaps  they  could  hardly  be  regarded  as  a  part  of  the  muni- 
tions industry.  When  it  was  pointed  out  that  if  they  had  a  patriotic 
intent  they  came  under  a  different  clause  of  the  law  and  would  have 
a  good  claim  to  be  exempted.  I  have  myself  been  scanning  the  horizon 
ever  since  these  bills  have  been  introduced,  and  the  only  industry  I 
have  been  able  to  find  that  might  be  exempted  was  the  manufacture 
of  artificial  flowers,  but  the  bills  were  so  carefully  and  ingeniously 
drawn,  with  a  provision  that  all  safeguards  might  be  relaxed  for  all 
industries,  where  failure  to  do  so  might  inconvenience  the  public,  and 
the  artificial  flower  manufacturers  are  a  part  of  the  public,  and  if 
their  profits  were  interfered  with,  that  would  inconvenience  them, 
and  so  they  also  would  come  under  these  laws.  Now  the  things  which 
for  several  months  past  has  filled  the  minds  of  the  women  who  have 
care  about  the  labor  laws  is  the  question :  Why  do  the  men  of  New 
York  elect  such  officials  ?  We  have  got  a  reprieve.  But  how  long  are 
we  to  spend  our  days  in  going  to  Albany  to  keep  the  searchlight  turned 
upon  the  officials  whom  the  men  of  New  York  send  there — after  the 
same  men  have  year  after  year  acted  in  ways  which  make  it  inevi- 
table that  this  year  they  should  act  thus.  What  is  the  use  of  electing 
people  for  whom  democracy  is  the  emptiest  vote  catcher  and  then 
expressing  surprise  that  they  act  exactly  as  they  always  acted  before. 
Now,  if  we  care  for  democracy,  democracy  begins  at  home.  For  the 
New  York  men  democracy  begins  in  New  York,  and  it  has  two  mani- 
festations— ^first  the  election  of  people  who  have  shown  themselves 
democratic  and  second  the  willingness  to  share  the  vote  with  all  the 
people  concerned. 

There  is  one  other  aspect  of  this.  A  bill  is  pending  and  I  think 
it  has  many  cousins  in  many  other  states.  It  also  is  before  the  Gov- 
ernor providing  for  the  exemption  of  young  children — girls  and  boys 
from  twelve  years  up — from  school  attendance  from  the  firs't  of  April 

51 


to  the  first  of  November,  not  only  for  this  year,  but  throughout  the 
war,  to  enable  these  young  children  to  go  and  raise  grain  or  food  of 
some  kind.  Of  course,  children  twelve  years  old  are  not  very  useful 
now  in  the  kind  of  agriculture  that  is  carried  on  in  this  country,  but 
they  are  going  after  these  schools  as  soon  as  Governor  Whitman  signs 
these  bills.  They  do  this,  of  course,  presumably  to  raise  useful  food. 
The  most  useful  food  nowadays  is  the  grain  food.  The  day  that  we 
had  our  hearing  protesting  against  these  bills  was  followed  by  another 
day,  on  which  I. found  on  my  desk  a  circular  from  the  Distilleries  Se- 
curities Company  explaining  that  they  had  last  year  paid  in  taxes  to 
the  Federal  Government  $146,000,000  for  distilled  beverages  at  $1.10 
a  gallon  and  offering  to  pay  $2.20  a  gallon  this  year  for  the  privilege 
of  distilling  a  larger  amount  of  beverages. 

I  have  not  been  engaged  in  a  prohibition  campaign,  but  I  wish 
to  call  your  attention  to  the  disparity  between  our  turning  little 
boys  and  girls  twelve  years  old,  out  of  the  school  for  (five  school 
months :  April,  May,  June,  September  and  October,  to  increase  the 
food  supply  and  our  letting  the  Distilleries  Securities  Corporation 
have  enough  of  that  grain  to  distill  for  beverages,  to  call  for  a  tax 
of  146  million  dollars  at  $1.10  a  gallon.  It  seems  to  me,  that  we  need 
in  this  country  restoration  of  our  sense  of  proportion.  If  the  inter- 
national famine  is  sudh  that  the  starving  have  to  be  saved  by  the 
twelve-year-old  girls  going  into  the  field,  and  the  twelve-year-old 
boys — all  of  them  losing  five  months  of  their  school  year — why  does 
Congress  pass  over  the  proposals  to  do  something  about  that  146 
million  dollar  tax  supply  of  alcohol  for  beverages.  I  think  that  it  is 
a  matter  of  the  most  serious  consideration  for  people  such  as  make 
up  this  audience,  that  the  onslaug'ht  upon  the  schools  is  exactly  as 
pernicious  as  the  onslaught  upon  the  labor  laws,  and  I  believe  that 
the  underlying  cause  is  exactly  the  same  hypocrisy. 

A  year  ago  last  March,  a  young  girl,  connected  with  the  settle- 
ment where  I  live,  t'he  house  in  Henry  Street — was  giving  a  dancing 
lesson  to  some  children  in  a  Children's  Aid  School  close  by.  The 
lesson  was  interrupted  by  the  entrance  of  three  agile  policemen, 
armed  not  w^ith  clubs,  but  with  tape  measures.  They  went  down  on 
their  knees  and  clumsily  measured  the  floor  of  the  schoolroom  in 
which  the  dancing  lesson  w^as  going  on,  and  when  fhe  astonished 
young  dancing  teacher  inquired  why  they  were  doing  this,  they 
said  that  Mayor  Mitchel  had  instructed  Commissioner  Woods  to 
learn  the  floor  area  of  every  school  in  the  city,  so  that  Mayor  Mitchel 
might  know  exactly  w'hat  resources  the  Mayor  had  at  his  disposal 
for  hospital  care  of  the  wounded  and  for  barrack  use. 

And  I  wish  to  call  to  your  attention  the  fact  that  the  State  Com- 
missioner of  Education  the  Honorable  John  Finley,  after  accepting 
the  responsibility  of  making  the  rules  and  regulations  which  are  to 
have  the  force  of  law,  for  the  guidance  of  the  children  who  are  free 
to  leave  school  and  go  and  engage  in  agriculture,  has  departed.  The 
shepherd  has  left  his  sheep.  He  has  gone  to  France  to  see  what  use 
France  has  made  of  her  school  buildings  during  fhe  War.     When 

52 


Commissioner  Finley  returns  to  this  country,  interested  citizens 
may  well  read  his  report  and  may  well  insist  upon  knowing  what 
confidential  report  he  files  at  Washington,  and  with  the  Mayor,  as 
to  possible  other  uses  than  educational  uses  of  our  schools. 

OwEX  R.  LovEjOY,  Secretary  of  the  National  Child  Labor  Committee: 
Child  Labor  and  the  War. 

I  congratulate  myself  on  being  permitted  to  have  so  popular  a 
place,  on  this  program,  because  at  least  this  one  topic,  Which  has 
been  assigned  to  me,  is  one  on  which  all  the  people  ought  to  be  able 
to  agree.  There  is  no  question  here  between  the  position  of  the 
ultra-militarist  and  the  extreme  pacifist.  Child  labor,  as  everyone 
of  average  intelligence  knows,  not  only  robs  the  child  of  his  educa- 
tional opportunities  and  of  the  joys  of  childhood,  but  it  seriously 
and  definitely  interferes  with  the  storing  up  of  those  physical  and 
other  qualities  that  are  needed  to  produce  reliable  and  self-support- 
ing citizenship. 

The  militarists  must  be  extremely  anxious  that  every  boy, 
especially,  shall  maintain  all  his  physical  strength,  in  order  to  be 
able  to  meet  the  military  tests  in  the  years  to  come,  and  since  so 
many  places  have  been  found  recently  for  women  to  serve  in  various 
agencies  that  are  working  to  promote  military  activity,  they  must 
also  be  no  less  interested  in  safeguarding  the  education  and  health 
of  girls.  The  non-militarist,  on  the  other  hand,  is  equally  interested 
in  trying  to  preserve  the  health  and  strength  of  the  children  of 
the  present  day  for  the  higher  and  larger  patriotic  and  civic  services 
of  the  future.  Yet  happy  as  this  unanimity  of  opinion  is  on  the  sur- 
face and  in  the  abstract,  when  we  come  to  analyze  it  in  the  concrete, 
we  find  that  our  optimism  is  not  quite  so  well  founded  because  one 
of  the  first  things  that  happened  when  war  broke  out  in  Europe  was 
the  breakdown  of  the  educational  standards,  the  suspension  of  Child 
Labor  Laws,  the  shooting  into  fragments  of  the  Juvenile  Court, 
and  the  setting  aside  of  practically  all  the  agencies  and  activities 
that  have  been  built  up  in  the  past  hundred  years,  to  safeguard  the 
interests  and  welfare  of  children.  Reports  that  have  come  to  us 
from  practically  all  the  warring  countries  during  the  past  two  years 
--fragmentary  reports  of  course,  most  of  them,  sifting  through  the 
hands  of  the  censor — are  in  the  same  direction. 

I  am  very  glad  to  add  that  after  a  little  more  than  two  years  of 
warring  in  Europe,  I  believe  all  of  the  belligerent  countries  have 
discovered  that  they  made  a  grievous  blunder  at  the  outset,  that 
when  they  launched  their  ship  of  state  out  on  the  seas  of  war,  they 
ought  not  to  have  thrown  overboard  all  of  its  precious  cargoes. 
They  oug'ht  to  have  preserved  the  educational  laws  and  regulations 
— their  Child  Labor  Laws — and  made  them  stronger.  They  ought 
to  have  extended  their  Juvenile  Courts  to  look  over  the  children — 
to  safeguard  them  in  this  time.  With  the  policeman  of?  his  beat, 
the  father  at  the  front,  and  the  mother  working  in  ammunition  fac- 

53 


tories,  the  little  child  was  left  to  his  own  devices.    If  you  have  children, 
you  know  what  these  devices  are. 

So  England  has  reported  that  in  one  year  there  was  an  increase, 
ranging  in  different  cities  from  25,  32  and  37  per  cent,  in  juvenile 
delinquency.  We  had  a  report  recently  from  Germany.  It  was 
stated  that  in  the  city  of  Berlin,  there  was  an  increase  of  50  per  cent, 
in  juvenile  delinquency  the  first  year  of  the  war,  as  compared  with 
the  preceding  year,  and  in  the  past  year,  an  average  of  seventeen 
German  cities  showed  an  increase  of  55  per  cent,  in  juvenile  delin- 
quency. Even  a  little  German  boy  will  break  the  law  if  there  is  not 
someone  around  watching  him,  and  reminding  him  that  that  won't 
please  the  Kaiser  if  he  does  it. 

The  other  day  our  photographer  went  to  a  little  tenement  room 
up  here  on  upper  Second  Avenue — a  little  room  in  w'hich  eight 
people  lived.  One  inside  room  is  their  home.  There  he  found  a 
mother,  sitting  at  the  table  with  a  little  three-months'-old  baby  in 
her  arms,  and  around  the  same  table  there  were  four  children,  ages 
ten,  nine,  seven  and  five,  and  they  Were  all  busily  engaged  in  helping 
save  this  country  from  Germany.  And  what  was  their  special  task? 
It  must  have  been  a  very  highly  prized  task.  It  must  have  been  of 
special  value  to  our  country,  or  we  would  not  so  highly  reward 
them.  They  were  being  paid,  if  they  worked  hard  all  day,  and  far 
into  the  night — the  combination  of  mother  and  four  children  were 
being  paid — the  splendid  wage  of  two  dollars  a  week,  and  their  job 
was  to  make  these  little  flags  for  us  to  wear  in  the  lapel  of  our  coat, 
and  fasten  them  on  cards,  so  that  we  may  show  that  we  are  patriots, 
because  we  wear  the  stars  and  stripes.  Talk  about  insulting  the 
flag !  Good  heavens,  friends^ — if  that  is  not  desecration  !  For  that 
job  the  poor  family  was  being  paid  three  cents  a  gross.  The  system 
was  Taylorized,  so  that  they  could  do  it  fast,  you  see. 

Now  I  say  we  hope  that  the  farmers  are  going  to  save  us  from 
the  fate  that  the  canners  of  this  city  Would  try  to  visit  upon  us. 
The  National  Child  Labor  Committee  recently  sent  out  to  the  country 
after  all  the  city  people  around  the  various  parts  of  the  country 
had  decided  the  poor  farmer  was  the  one  man  who  needed  help 
this  summer — we  sent  out  a  questionnaire  to  the  Grains  Officials 
and  other  farmers'  offi:cials  in  every  state  of  the  union,  and  we  began 
to  get  replies  from  them.  We  asked  them,  ''Do  you  want  children 
this  summer  to  help  you  with  your  farming  problems?  If  so,  at 
what  age  do  you  want  the — ^boys — girls?  What  wages  will  you 
pay?  Will  the  work  be  steady  or  intermittent?  At  what  season  of 
the  summer  can  you  use  them  best?"  We  tried  to  make  the 
questionnaire  as  colorless  as  we  could  so  that  we  would  not  preju- 
dice them.  When  the  replies  came  back,  we  found  that  we  did  not 
need  to  color  them — they  were  all  given  with  the  finest  kind  of  color. 
Seventy-five  per  cent,  of  those  farmers  came  back  with  a  flat  "Don't 
send  any  of  the  children  to  us.  We  have  troubles  enough  already." 
And  the  other  25  per  cent,  made  replies  so  much  like  the  other  75  per 
cent,  that  we  could  not  see  much  difference. 

54    . 


A  few  of  them  in  the  berry  picking  section  and  in  the  onion 
fields,  where  the  weeding  and  thinning  of  onions  goes  on  in  the 
summer,  did  say  that  they  could  take  sixteen-year-old  boys  and 
eighteen-year-old  girls  to  do  some  of  the  lighter  work  in  the  summer 
months,  but  the  children  they  did  not  want  at  any  price. 

I  will  not  take  any  more  time  except  to  urge  you  friends  that 
in  the  interests  of  the  very  highest  kind  of  patriotism,  whether  we 
are  glad  that  this  country  is  in  a  state  of  war,  or  whether  any  of 
us  regret  it — we  all  want  our  nation  to  perform  the  'highest,  most 
noble  kind  of  service,  whether  in  peace  or  war,  and  in  the  present 
crisis  that  is  upon  us,  in  the  interest  of  patriotism,  in  the  higher 
interest  of  a  broader  humanity,  let  us  insist  that  not  a  single 
standard  that  relates  to  the  protection  of  the  boys  and  girls  of  our 
country  shall  be  abated  for  a  single  minute,  because  the  boys  and 
girls  who  need  protection  now,  are  the  very  ones  w'ho  will  be 
needed  either  in  peace  or  war  in  ten  years  from  now. 

Miss  Elizabeth  Freeman  :  Finances  of  the  Conference. 

I  think  of  a  story  that  I  heard  once  of  a  little  boy  who  had  swal- 
lowed a  quarter,  and  all  the  members  of  the  family  suggested  various 
sorts  of  things  to  be  done  to  get  the  quarter  back,  and  finally  one 
of  the  members  of  the  family,  who  was  an  old  maid,  and  not  sup- 
posed to  know  the  least  thing  about  children,  said:  "Suppose  you 
send  around  the  corner  for  the  Methodist  Minister.  If  anyone  can 
get  money  out  of  you,  he  can."  I  have  tried  to  put  this  job  oflf  on 
everyone  that  I  know  in  this  audience,  and  nobody  will  take  it.  The 
job  is  to  ask  this  group  of  people  here,  who  have  come  to  the  First 
American  Conference  for  Democracy  and  Terms  of  Peace,  to  help 
to  pay  for  it,  because  without  money  we  cannot  hire  halls.  They 
talk  about  the  high  cost  of  living — it  does  not  begin  with  the 
high  cost  of  hiring  halls.  I  don't  know  what  Madison  Square 
Garden  feeds  on,  but  it  is  more  expensive  now  than  a  month  ago — 
and  this  theatre  has  cost  money — and  the  printing,  and  the  post- 
age, and  one  thousand  and  other  things  have  cost  money.  We  are 
going  to  be  called  upon  by  this  Government  of  ours  to  give  up  every- 
thing we  possibly  can  during  war  times. 

Now  we  want  out  of  the  Conference  (and  so  do  you,  because  it 
is  yours)  something  great  and  fine  to  grow  up.  This  is  our  child 
— your  child — that  must  go,  not  only  all  over  the  United  States, 
but  all  over  the  world.  When  you  realize  that  less  than  one  month 
ago  this  baby  was  not  born'. — when  you  realize  that  in  that  short 
space  of  time,  fhere  has  come  in  answer  to  the  call  to  help  to  foster 
it  and  bring  it  into  being — names  of  people  in  forty-two  states  in  this 
union,  it  shows  very  clearly  that  the  people  want  it.  When  you  find 
men  in  the  Colorado  mines  sending  ten  cents  worth  of  stamps  to 
help  it  along,  it  showsi  that  it  is  something  growing,  or  answering 
to  something  growing  in  the  hearts  of  the  common  people  of  this 
country.  We  have  with  us  to-day  a  man  w'ho  has  come  from 
Australia  to  be  here  at  this  Conference.  This  afternoon  We  had  a 
Chinaman  on  this  platform,  who  had   come  to  take  part  in  this 

55 


Conference.  And  while  we  call  it  the  First  American  Conference,  at 
its  incipiency  we  make  it  international.  Now  what  are  you  going 
to  do  to  carry  it  on?  We  have  done  our  part.  We  have  brought 
you  the  speakers.  We  have  brought  you  together.  We  have  done 
all  we  know  how,  and  it  is  up  to  everyone  here  to  do  something, 
not  only  to  bear  the  expense  of  this  initial  Conference,  but  to  put 
into  the  treasury  money  that  will  help  to  carry  this  message  all  over 
this  and  every  other  country.  It  means  that  everyone  representing 
an  organization — everyone  representing  a  state,  must  pledge  some- 
thing to-night,  in  honor  of  that  state,  or  that  organization,  and  I 
am  going  to  ask  someone  here  to-night,  who  feels  the  greatness  of 
this  movement,  who  has  the  vision  to  see  that  here  is  something 
big  in  the  future  for  us  all,  to  rise  up  where  you  are — don't  be 
afraid  of  yourself — and  tell  us  how  much  you  are  going  to  pledge 
to  give  towards  this  new  organization.  I  would  like  somebody  to 
start  oft*  wnth  five  thousand  dollars. 

Stephen  Bircher,  of  the  Brotherhood  of  Metal  Workers:  Labor  in 
War  Time. 

Representing  an  organization  that  has  been  fighting  for  the 
cause  of  labor,  and  has  not  as  yet  given  up  the  idea  of  doing  all 
that  it  can  to  maintain  the  standards  attained  during  many  years 
of  hard  struggle,  I  would  like  to  ask  all  of  you  who  have  in  any 
way  anything  to  do  with  working  men,  women  and  children — to, 
at  all  times,  bear  in  mind  that  the  burden  of  this  war  lies  upon  our 
shoulders  doubly — the  burden  lies  upon  our  shoulders  more  heavily 
than  upon  anyone  else.  Workers  'have  been  fighting  a  long  and 
bitter  struggle,  even  while  peace  was  in  existence.  In  this  and 
every  other  war  we  have  been  compelled  to  fight  the  battles  of 
labor  against  capital — on  top  of  this  we  now  have  another  war — that 
betw^een  the  United  States  and  the  central  powers  of  Europe.  It 
is  for  that  reason  that  we  have  got,  at  this  time,  not  only  to  prepare, 
but  to  decide,  once  and  for  all,  that  we  will  do  all  there  is  in  our 
power,  through  organized  eflfort,  to  resist  the  abrogation,  or  the 
suspension  of  labor  laws,  for  which  we  have  been  fighting  for  so 
many  years.  I  am  very  sorry  that  the  committee  of  which  I  have 
been  a  member,  was  not  in  a  position  to  lay  dow^n  a  definite  program 
for  everyone  to  folloAv.  Within  our  hearts  those  of  us  who  have 
been  fighting  the  battles  of  labor  still,  have  there  the  one  determina- 
tion that  We  are  going  to  fight  with  all  our  might,  not  only  to  retain 
that  which  we  have  got,  but  to  get  more  of  the  things  that  we 
need  to  support  ourselves  and  our  families.  We  will  not  take  a 
back  step  for  anyone.  We  will  carry  on  the  battles  of  labor  as  far 
as  the  laws  are  concerned,  peacefully.  We  as  w^orkers  are  in  the 
great  majority  in  this  country.  We  have  a  right  to  be  heard  upon 
the  conditions  under  which  we  will  labor.  If  there  are  laws  that 
are  detrimental  to  our  welfare,  we  will  make  our  views  heard.  We 
will  make  our  power  felt  in  the  Legislative  bodies  of  our  country. 
We  will  demand  that  all  laws  that  have  been  enacted  up  to  the 

56 


present  shall  be  carried  on  further,  and  that  new  ones  shall  be 
enacted,  that  shall  protect  us,  while  we  are  fighting  the  battles  of 
this  nation.  I  hope  that  everyone  of  you  will  do  all  you  can  to 
bring  this  message  to  the  great  body  of  unorganized  workers — 
unorganized  I  say,  because  the  organized  worker  can  take  care 
of  himself  at  all  times,  but  the  unorganized  worker — he  is  so  un- 
fortunate as  to  have  no  backing  of  any  kind.  He  needs  that  advice, 
so  spread  the  word  broadcast:  organize,  and  through  organized 
effort  retain  what  you  have  got,  and  gain  more  of  the  things  which 
are  necessary  for  a  decent  living. 

Edward  J.   Cassidy  of  the  Central  Federated  Union,   New  York: 
"Labor  and  Peace." 

It  might  be  of  interest  to  you  to  know  how  the  Central  Federated 
Union  of  this  city  stands  in  regard  to  the  movement  that  we  are  asso- 
ciated with  to-night.  On  last  Friday  night  at  the  regular  meeting  of 
the  Central  Federated  Union,  a  communication  from  this  organiza- 
tion was  read,  in  which  the  central  body  was  asked  to  endorse  this 
movement.  The  proposition  to  endorse  this  movement  and  to  help 
in  the  accomplishment  of  its  purposes  was  carried  by  the  Central  Fed- 
erated Union  by  a  unanimous  vote  and  three  delegates  were  elected 
by  the  Central  Federated  Union  to  this  conference.  It  is  a  strange 
thing  that  even  among  the  trade  unionists  you  will  find  a  certain  Rip 
Van  Winkle  element  who  seem  to  regard  this  movement  and  those 
akin  to  it  as  having  somewhat  the  aspect  or  suspicion  of  being  un- 
patriotic. There  exists  in  my  union  a  small  percentage  of  the  mem- 
bership who  seem  to  regard  me  personally  as  being  one  whose  loyalty 
to  the  democracy  of  the  country  is  tainted.  However,  I  am  very  glad 
to  say  to  you,  my  friends,  that  amongst  the  trade  unionists  that  type 
is  a  minority  element.  Every  time,  either  after  the  war  has  been  de- 
clared or  prior  to  the  declaration  of  the  war,  that  we  tested  the  mem- 
bership of  the  trade  union  movement  on  this  question  we  find  they  are 
faced  toward  the  progress  of  democracy. 

The  New  York  State  Federation  of  Labor,  or  rather  the  Execu- 
tive Board,  consisting,  I  think,  of  about  one  dozen  men,  did  the  most 
astounding  thing  I  have  ever  heard  in  all  my  twenty-eight  years  of 
activity  in  the  labor  movement  when,  in  order  to  convince  the  state 
goverment  and  the  general  public  that  organized  labor  In  this  state 
was  patriotic,  they  voluntarily  said  to  the  Governor:  "As  proof  of  our 
patriotism  we  agree,  as  a  contribution,  to  our  country  In  this  crisis, 
to  the  abrogation  of  the  labor  law."  The  next  meeting  of  the  dele- 
gates of  the  Central  Federated  Union  went  against  that  proposition. 
We  regarded  it  not  as  loyalty,  but  as  treason  to  the  labor  movement, 
and  so  did  the  Central  Labor  Unions  throughout  the  state,  until  the 
State  Federation  of  Labor  had  to  right  about  face,  and  we  compelled 
them  last  week  in  Albany  at  the  hearing  on  the  labor  laws,  to  stand 
by  at  the  command  of  the  rank  and  file  and  fight  against  these  laws 
being  enacted. 

57 


The  Central  Federated  Union  has  passed  a  resolution  of  abso- 
lutely undivided  loyalty  to  the  country  in  this  crisis.  The  typographi- 
cal union,  of  which  I  am  a  member,  and  the  Central  Federated  Union 
have  done  the  same.  But  when  we  do  these  things,  as  an  organized 
labor  movement,  we  do  not  mean  that  we  are  not  going  to  keep  our 
eyes  alert  and  our  senses  alert  to  see  the  anti-democratic  elements 
in  this  country  that  would  seize  this  opportunity  in  the  national  crisis 
to  steal  away  from  us  our  democratic  priviliges  that  we  have  gained 
through  these  years  of  struggle  in  the  past.  I  claim,  my  friends,  it  is 
the  highest  type  of  democracy  and  loyalty  and  true  patriotism  for  us 
people  of  the  labor  union  and  you  people  in  syrnpathy  with  the  labor 
movement  and  progress,  to  keep  your  eyes  alert  and  to  point  the 
finger  and  the  searchlight  of  exposure  on  the  elements  of  this  coun- 
try that  you  and  I  know  from  past  experience  would  destroy  the  labor 
movement,  destroy  all  our  social  and  labor  legislation  and  destroy  our 
democracy  if  w^e  permitted  them  to  do  it. 

Our  newspaper  press  are  very  much  perplexed  and  well-meaning 
individuals  are  very  much  perplexed  at  the  lack  of  response  to  the  call 
of  the  United  States  Government  for  men  to  step  forth  into  the  ranks 
of  the  army  and  the  navy.  Why  is  it  that  while  we  see  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  flags  flying  in  the  wind  and  while  we  find  our  news- 
papers, issue  after  issue,  belching  forth  patriotic  announcement,  that 
the  people  and  the  young  men  are  not  responding.  If  the  United 
States  Government  wished  to  double  and  triple  and  double  up  a 
dozen  times  the  number  of  men  who  will  enlist  in  the  army  without 
the  necessity  of  a  draft  or  conscription,  let  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment come  forth  and  reach  its  powerful  governmental  arm  to  the 
speculators  in  the  people's  food.  Let  them  go  to  work  and  fix  a  maxi- 
mum amount  for  the  staple  articles  of  livelihood.  Let  them  take  over 
the  railroad  system  of  this  country  during  the  period  of  the  war  at 
least.  Let  them  further  assure  us  that  we  do  not  go  through  the  same 
experience  in  previous  wars,  when  the  sons  of  the  poor  were  con- 
scripted for  the  trenches,  and  ways  were  found  to  keep  the  sons  of 
the  rich  away  from  the  cannon  and  the  poisoned  gas  and  the  bayonet. 
If  we  are  going  to  have  the  draft,  as  we  are  going  to  have  it,  let 
us  see  to  it  that  the  rich  will  be  conscripted  as  well  as  the  poor  and  that 
no  loophole  shall  be  permitted  for  them  to  crawl  through.  Let  us 
also  see  to  it,  above  everything  else,  that  our  public  school  system  is 
not  going  to  be  crippled,  under  the  pretext  of  the  war.  Let  us  see  to 
it  that  that  is  not  seized  as  a  pretext  to  put  the  gag  on  the  labor  press, 
so  that  the  labor  press  and  the  forward  and  progressive  press  is  not 
closed.  Let  the  government  do  these  things — do  its  part — and  there 
would  be  a  more  patriotic  response  from  all  the  elements  in  the  com- 
munity, including  the  labor  movement. 

Abraham    I.    Shiplacoff,   Member  New   York    State   Legislature: 
Labor  Laws  in  War. 

I  had  an  occasion  to  be  in  Canada  a  short  while  ago,  where  we 
had  a  strike  of  tailors  in  the  city  of  Montreal,  asking  for  better  con- 

58 


ditions,  and  they  tried  to  play  the  patriotic  game  on  our  tailors  out 
there,  and  we  have  made  them  understand  that  we  can  go  them  one 
better  when  it  domes  to  patriotism.  They  have  gone  so  far  as  to 
distribute  a  few  dozen  miHtary  guns  in  every  one  of  the  great  many 
shops  in  the  city,  and  then  threaten  that  if  we  continued  striking  they 
would  bring  the  soldiers  down  there  to  take  care  of  things,  and  we 
told  them  to  go  right  ahead  and  put  them  on  the  machines,  and  put 
them  to  work  if  they  could.  The  result  was  that  we  had  simply  called 
their  bluff,  and  we  would  have  them  understand  that  so  far  as  the 
conditions  of  labor  are  concerned,  if  we  cannot  be  protected  by  the 
labor  laws  and  Democrats  and  Republicans,  under  whatever  name  they 
happen  to  come  in  the  Legislative  bodies,  we  will  take  the  matter  into 
our  own  hands  and  we  will  not  let  all  the  work  that  has  dost  the  lives 
and  sacrifices  of  scores  of  years,  on  the  part  of  the  working  class  to 
accomplish,  be  broken  down  by  anyone. 

The  soldiers  were  not  even  called,  because  they  know  that  while 
the  soldiers  may  parade  up  and  down,  alongside  of  the  factory,  they 
cannot  do  the  work  that  is  necessary  to  manufacture  suits  and  coats 
and  things  of  that  kind.  The  result  was  that  we  won  the  strike,  just 
as  we  expected. 

This  is  my  second  year  in  the  New  York  State  Legislature,  and  I 
can  differentiate  between  the  spirit  of  the  Legislature  of  this  year  and 
last  year.  This  year  the  people  were  there,  representing  the  New 
York  Central,  the  Erie  Railroad,  the  State  Manufacturers'  Associa- 
tion, the  big  Real  Estate  Men's  Association — the  people  who  repre- 
sent Wall  Street  and  the  people  who  represent  all  the  other  vested 
interests.  We  know  them  pretty  well — We  point  our  fingers  at  them 
every  time  we  get  up  to  speak — We  have  time  and  again  pointed  to  the 
gentlemen  representing  different  interests  there.  They  do  not  refute 
it,  but  feel  complimented. 

They  have  come  there  this  year  with  an  extraordinary  holiday 
spirit.  They  felt  that  this  is  their  season  and  their  harvest.  The  rep- 
resentatives in  the  Legislature  this  year — the  so-called  representatives 
of  the  people  who  are  in  reality  the  representatives  of  the  vested  in- 
terests, have  this  year  been  working  overtime. 

They  saw  the  grand  opportunity  they  had  to  break  down  the  laws 
that  the  working  classes  succeeded  in  getting  in  its  favor,  after  all 
these  past  years,  and  they  have  done  it  successfully  because  labor  has 
been  pretty  much  asleep.  Let  us  hope  that  this  terrible  price — ^that 
the  people  in  this  country  and  the  world  over  are  paying — will  at 
least  teach  us  this  lesson,  that  in  the  future  we  should  know  that  we 
have  got  to  have  those  representatives  in  the  legislative  bodies,  who 
have  not  merely  good  will,  but  who  have  the  definite  wishes  of  the 
great  masses  of  the  people  at  heart. 

Leonora  O'Reilly,  National  Women's  Trade  Union  League:  Safe- 
guarding Labor  in  War. 

As  the  last  speaker  I  want  to  say  to  you  that  we  must  get  the  full 
substance  of  what  Robert  Owen  meant  when  he  said  that  a  person 

59 


whose  intelligence  or  conscience  teaches  him  one  thing  and  his  inter- 
ests another  is  immorally  situated. 

What  is  true  of  a  person  is  true  of  a  people.  What  have  we  been 
doing  while  this  whole  world  was  bleeding  itself  to  death — murdering 
itself  ?  Our  consciences,  if  we  had  any  consciences  at  all,  were  teach- 
ing us  one  thing,  but  our  interests  were  teaching  us  another,  and  we 
were  taking — every  one  of  us — what  we  could  so  long  as  we  were  out 
of  the  bloody  business.  Now,  we  have  got  into  it  and  we  cannot  get 
out  of  it.  Until  we  get  out,  mark  you,  this  war  is  a  war  to  make 
democracy  possible.  I  wonder  whether  it  was  a  wise  man  or  a  fool 
who  said  that  thing — to  make  democracy  possible.  We  have  played 
with  the  term  democracy — we  have  played  with  the  labor  movement 
in  this  country — we  have  played  with  the  whole  thing. 

We  have  talked  democracy,  and  what  did  the  people  of  these 
United  States  have  to  say  about  whether  they  would  or  would  not  go 
into  this  thing,  in  order  that  Wall  Street  might  make  more  profits.  Well 
now,  we  have  had  nothing  to  say  about  it,  and  we  are  in  it — at  least 
we  are  drilling  boys  and  girls — at  least,  the  laboring  people  are  learning 
that  what  was  said  of  Germany  might  now  be  said  of  this  country. 

The  German  working  class — the  German  people — were  almost 
ready  for  a  movement  such  as  they  had  in  Russia,  and  so  the  Kaiser 
thought  it  was  time  to  destroy  radical  thought.  That  may  or  may  not 
be  true,  but  just  in  proportion  as  we  have  any  sense  of  democracy  in 
these  United  States,  the  gentlemen  who  have  gotten  us  into  this  war 
will  now  get  their  first  lesson  in  real  democracy.  Now  the  people 
of  the  South  will  speak  as  they  have  never  spoken  before.  Now  the  peo- 
ple of  the  West  wdll  speak  as  they  have  never  spoken  before.  Now  we 
will  see  what  our  people  of  the  East  are  really  thinking  about,  and  now 
our  labor  movement — our  splendid  labor  movement — splendid  at  the 
heart,  as  Brother  Cassidy  said,  splendid  at  the  heart,  will  bring  up 
its  sham  leaders,  and  w&  w^ill  know  just  how  much  intelligence  we 
have  among  us. 

But  one  thing  is  certain — the  whole  community  will  have  to  stand 
by  the  labor  movement.  Not  only  the  labor  movement — not  only 
these  Trade  Unionists — not  only  these  Socialists — not  only  these  agi- 
tators, but  the  w^hole  people  together  will  begin  to  sense  how  funda- 
mental are  the  teachings  of  that  much  abused  labor  movement  which 
teaches  that  every  child  that  is  born  should  be  taught  that  labor  creates 
all  wealth,  and  that  all  wealth  belongs  to  those  who  create  it.  Is  not 
that  simple?  The  men  of  '48  tried  to  teach  that  to  the  world.  The 
world  was  not  yet  ready. 

We  of  these  United  States  can  be  no  pro-ally,  pro-Germany,  pro- 
anything  but  pro-humane,  and  by  our  pro-humaneness  w^e  w^ll  win. 
Just  in  proportion  as  we  understand  that  these  whole  United  States 
belong  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  we  will  make  the  right  sort 
of  peace  when  peace  is  made.  Just  one  more  thought.  Women,  this 
is  your  hour,  for  never  in  the  history  of  all  the  wars  of  the  world  have 
wiomen  held  such  a  place,  by  right  of  their  intelligence,  as  they  are 
going  to  hold  in  this  one.     Before  this  war  came  to  us  a  group  of 

60 


women  from  all  countries,  warring  and  neutral,  got  together  to  see 
if  they  could  talk  or  plan  some  kind  of  peace,  that  the  w^rld  would 
be  willing  to  listen  to.  It  was  not  willing  to  do  anything  more  than 
let  us  talk.  But,  I  think,  our  talk  is  partly  the  cause  of  what  is  being 
done  here  to-night. 

Mary  Ware  Dennett  :  The  Taxation  of  Wealth  in  War  Time. 

It  is  not  at  all  the  function  of  this  conference  to  discuss  War 
Revenues  measures.  This  is  not  our  war.  We  did  not  want  it.  We 
wish  not  a  single  penny  could  be  appropriated  for  it.  But  this  war 
was  wished  upon  us.  It  is  here  and  unfortunately  an  enormous  appro- 
priation has  already  been  made.  The  loans  have  partly  been  made 
to  the  Allies.  We  have  already  contracts  made  for  an  enormous  pre- 
paredness programme  that  began  over  a  year  ago.  Our  question  is,  in 
paying  the  money  already  voted  by  our  representatives,  are  we  going 
to  be  bright  enough  to  start  something  in  war  times  as  a  system  of 
taxation  that  will  be  worth  keeping  in  peace  times? 

Fortunately,  we  have  one  man  in  Congress  who  is  doing  so.  Robert 
Grosser  of  Ohio  has  introduced  what  the  people  in  this  country  will 
presently  come  to  recognize  as  the  beginning  of  the  only  democratic 
plan  for  taxation  that  the  United  States  has  ever  had.  Robert  Grosser 
is  living  in  comparative  obscurity  now,  but  by  and  by  he  will  have  the 
halo  that  is  due  him.  Our  present  system  of  taxation  stands  almost 
fully  for  the  plutocratic  system.  Our  taxes  are  now  paid  by  the 
ultimate  consumer,  upon  whom  all  manner  of  taxes  but  one  can  be 
shifted. 

Robert  Grosser's  bill  is  a  land  value  taxation  bill,  introduced  and 
referred  to  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  inferentially,  as  a  war 
revenue  measure.  His  measure  provides  in  the  only  way  he  can 
at  present  make  a  land  value  taxation  measure  applicable — provides 
over  $2,000,000,000,  distributed  among  the  states,  according  to  the 
population.  That  is  made  necessary  by  the  provisions  of  the  United 
States  Constitution. 

The  public  makes  land  values.  Therefore,  the  public  should  take 
land  values.  What  the  public  makes  the  public  should  take  for  its  own 
purposes.  We  could,  if  we  took  the  annual  rental  of  that  land  value, 
have  a  Federal  income  of  five  billion,  and  that  would  be  without  taxing 
the  consumer — the  individual  consumer — one  single  bit.  A  land  value 
tax  cannot  be  shifted,  and  it  strikes  clear  into  the  middle  of  plu- 
tocracy. The  tendency  of  it  is  to  wipe  out  absolutely  the  parasitic 
class.  There  is  no  plan  of  taxation  thus  far  introduced  in  Congress 
which  has  that  tendency.  It  does  this  thing,  besides  that.  It  gets  clean 
in  under  the  high  cost  of  living.  There  is  enough  unused  land  in  the 
great  wheat  states  of  Montana,  the  two  Dakotas  and  Minnesota  to 
provide  wheat  for  an  empire.  The  land  is  held  out  of  use  for  specu- 
lative purposes.  We  could  tax  it  into  use,  that  is  the  advantage  of  the 
land  value  tax,  and  the  by-product  to  us  is  that  it  increases  our  food 
and  lowers  the  cost  of  our  food.    The  same  thing,  of  course,  is  true 

61 


with  our  coal,  and  it  also  raises  wages.  We  have  all  the  advantages — if 
we  had  done  that  a  long  time  ago  w/e  should  not  be  in  a  position  now 
where  our  hearts  are  wrung  to  the  extent  that  they  are  wrung  by  the 
hunger  of  the  Allies.  The  word  comes  over  to  us  that  we  must  feed 
those  European  nations.  Look  at  what  England  has  done  itself.  We 
have  the  budgets — statistics  from  England,  from  14  to  17, 
that  is,  March  of  this  year,  and  in  the  budget  we  find  that  certain 
of  their  taxes  have  enormously  increased.  The  customs,  for  instance, 
have  been  nearly  doubled.  The  income  tax  has  been  about  trebled.  The 
excise  tax  has  been  increased  600  times  and  all  of  them  has  more  or 
less  come  out  of  the  people — all  of  those  taxes  can  be  transferred  to 
the  ultimate  consumer.  But  during  that  time  England,  in  its  budget 
system,  has  not  so  much  as  touched  the  land  values.  They  stand  right 
there,  at  approximately  the  same  figure,  in  taxes  as  they  were  at  the 
beginning  of  the  war.  If  England  had  released  its  own  land  for 
agricultural  purposes  England  would  not  be  as  hungry  as  it  is  now. 
All  you  have  to  do  to  whip  up  your  support  and  enthusiasms  for  the 
Grosser  valuation  bill,  as  it  is  put  into  the  Congress,  is  to  just  investigate 
a  little  bit,  as  to  who  is  opposed  to  that  type  of  bill,  why  plutocracy  is 
fairly  tolerant — of  course,  only  fairly  tolerant — of  certain  kinds  of 
income  taxes — they  can  be  moved  on  to  you  and  me — ^but  plutocracy 
absolutely  has  an  exceedingly  intelligent  and  very  bitter  opposition  to 
the  land  value  tax.  Plutocracy  knows  mighty  well  what  the  land  value 
tax  will  do,  if  the  rest  of  us  do  not  know  it,  and  if  you  want  a  short 
cut  to  conversion  to  the  vaue  of  a  land  value  tax  look  at  the  enemies 
of  it.  You  iwill  find  ample  opportunity  there.  One  of  these  great 
copper  companies  that  is  now  posing  as  a  patriotic  body  of  people 
by  offering  the  United  States  copper  at  half  the  current  market  rates  is 
not  telling  of  course  what  has  leaked  out,  that  that  figure  is  a  good 
deal  over  what  the  copper  rate  had  been  for  the  past  decade,  and 
therefore  leaves  them  with  a  handsome  profit,  so  that  they  can  afford  to 
pay  an  income  tax.  But  do  you  suppose  those  same  copper  interests 
would  be  at  all  hospitable  to  the  land  value  tax,  that  would  force 
them,  as  well  as  the  coal  barons  and  all  the  other  land  owners,  out 
through  the  productive  parts  of  our  country  that  are  rich  in  natural 
resources,  do  you  suppose  that  they  would  be  hospitable  at  all  to  a 
land  value  tax  that  would  force  them  to  use  the  land  they  are  holding 
out  of  use?  Not  a  bit.  They  would  sing  an  absolutely  different  tune. 
It  is  of  enormous  value  to  start  now,  as  a  war  revenue  measure,  but 
it  is  even  more  important  to  hold  this  over  and  keep  it  forever  and 
ever  in  the  United  States  as  the  beginning  of  a  real  democratic  system 
of  taxation. 


63 


Fourth  Session 

Thursday,  May  31,  10  A.  M. 

American  Liberties  in  War  Time: 

Daniel  Kiefer,  Cincinnati,  Chairman. 

Preliminary  statement  by  Dr.  J.  L.  Magnes,  Chairman  of  the 
Conference :  I  would  like  to  call  the  attention  of  this  meeting  to  the 
following  despatch  in  all  of  this  morning's  newspapers : 

"The  Department  of  Justice  to-day  communicated  instructions  by 
telegraph  or  long  distance  telephone  to  its  officers  and  agents  in  com- 
munities wherever  meetings  are  likely  to  be  held  at  which  agitation 
against  registration  as  prescribed  in  the  new  army  bill  might  be  indulged 
in.  The  United  States  attorneys  and  marshals  were  directed  to  be 
present  or  represented  at  the  meetings  and  to  have  stenographic  re- 
ports made  of  the  addresses  delivered.  These  reports  will  be  gone 
over  carefully  and  arrests  will  be  made  later  in  all  instances  in  which 
the  utterances  of  the  speakers  are  calculated  to  disturb  registration  or 
to  influence  individuals  into  attempting  to  evade  the  provisions  of  the 
law.  The  United  States  attorneys  and  marshals  were  also  directed 
to  ask  close  co-operation  with  the  local  police  authorities  in  each  com- 
munity. From  the  reports  being  made  daily  by  the  agents  throughout 
the  country  the  officials  of  the  department  are  convinced  that  such 
threats  to  resist  registration  as  are  being  made  are  the  result  of  local 
and  sporadic  influences  and  are  not  inspired  by  any  organized  efifort 
of  serious  consequence." 

I  don't  know  if  this  meeting  is  regarded  as  one  of  those  coming 
within  the  provisions  of  this  telegram.  If  this  meeting  is  so  regarded 
and  if  the  agents  and  officers  of  the  Department  of  Justice  are  here  to 
take  stenographic  reports  of  the  addresses  delivered  I  would  have 
much  pleasure  in  inviting  them  to  occupy  seats  with  us  on  the  platform, 
where  they  will  be  afforded  full  facilities  for  such  stenographic  reports 
as  they  may  have  to  make. 

The  custom  in  Prussia  at  every  meeting  where  political  subjects 
are  discussed  is  just  that — that  representatives  of  the  Department  of 
Justice  occupy  seats  on  the  platform  and  take  down  stenographically 
everything  that  is  said.  Inasmuch  as  we  are  very  rapidly  becoming 
Prussianized  here  there  is  all  the  more  reason  why  we  should  extend 
this  courteous  invitation  to  the  representatives  of  the  Department 
should  they  be  here  on  the  assumption  that  this  meeting  is  one,  to 
quote  the  message  again,  "at  which  agitation  against  registration  as 
prescribed  in  the  new  army  bill,  might  be  indulged  in." 

63 


I  should  like  to  say  that  this  is  not  such  a  meeting,  and  in  order 
to  make  very  clear  that  this  is  not  such  a  meeting  I  shall  read  a  state- 
ment prepared  by  the  organizers  of  this  Conference.  I  should  like  to 
hand  the  statement  to  the  representatives  of  the  Department  and  the 
press.     (Dr.  Magnes  then  read  the  following  statement)  : 

DECLARATION  OF  THE  ORGANIZERS  OF  THE  CONFER- 
ENCE ON  TERMS  OF  PEACE  AND  DEMOCRACY 

It  is  the  inflexible  purpose  of  the  organizers  of  the  First  Ameri- 
can Conference  on  Democracy  and  Terms  of  Peace  to  keep  its  dis- 
cussions and  its  resolutions  strictly  within  the  law.  Any  resolution  in 
any  way  advising  any  action  contrary  to  law  will  be  declared  out  of 
order. 

We  regard  as  perfectly  within  the  law  and  we  favor  all  discussion 
as  to  the  wisdom  or  unwisdom  of  existing  laws,  all  discussion  as 
to  their  constitutionality  and  methods  of  testing  their  constitutionality, 
all  discussion  as  to  their  repeal  by  Congress  and  all  suggestions  for  the 
liberal  interpretation  of  existing  laws. 

Mr.  Daniel  Kiefer  :  Conscription  and  Democracy. 

The  conscription  act  is  both  immoral  and  unconstitutional.  It  vio- 
lates the  prohibition  of  involuntary  servitude.  Not  even  the  hair- 
splitting plea  can  be  urged  that  the  thirteenth  amendment  does  not 
forbid  national  defense.  Sending  conscripts  to  Europe  is  not  national 
defense,  but  mixing  in  the  quarrels  of  outside  nations.  And  if,  as  is 
suggested,  conscripts  can  be  compelled  to  work  as  farm  hands,  fac- 
tory hands  or  in  other  civil  occupations,  the  thirteenth  amendment  is 
not  worth  the  paper  it  is  written  upon.  So  the  first  duty  of  a  citizen 
who  has  been  drafted  is  to  appeal  to  the  court  for  protection  of  his 
constitutional  rights. 

I  cannot  say  that  I  have  much  confidence  in  the  courts.  I  have 
had  too  many  occasions  to  take  note  of  decisions  which  seem  to  me 
indefensible.  I  have  had  occasion  to  discuss  with  my  lawyer  friends 
some  of  these  decisions  and  I  find  that  when  a  court  has  declared 
some  popularly  demanded  law  unconstitutional  their  defense  is  that 
the  constitution  is  intended  to  protect  minorities  against  oppression 
by  the  majority,  and  it  is  the  court's  duty  to  so  declare.  Very  well, 
let  us  accept  this  view,  and  ask  the  courts  either  to  make  good  this 
claim  by  declaring  the  conscription  act  unconstitutional,  as  it  obviously 
is,  or  by  a  different  course,  impliedly  admit,  that  they  are  merely 
tools  of  private  interests,  nullifying  laws  in  the  name  of  the  constitu- 
tion, when  these  interests  so  desire,  and  upholding  laws,  regardless  of 
the  constitution,  when  that  is  what  is  wanted. 

But  the  conscription  act  is  immoral  as  well  as  unconstitutional. 
The  conscript  must  take  an  oath  to  obey,  without  question,  com- 
mands of  a  superior  officer.  The  oath  says  "lawful"  commands,  but 
no  one  has  ever  heard  of  a  soldier  who  insisted  on  getting  a  legal 
opinion  of  his  officer's  command  or  a  court  decision  thereon  before 

64 


carrying  it  out.  And  every  one  has  a  pretty  accurate  idea  of  what 
would  happen  to  a  soldier  who  would  object  to  a  command  that  he 
felt  sure  was  unlawful.  So  the  conscript  must  be  ready  to  commit 
any  wrong  ordered.  Why  is  a  good  citizen  not  justified  in  taking 
advantage  of  any  opportunity  to  avoid  danger  o  fsuch  a  situation? 

The  question  is  not  of  a  citizen's  duty  to  defend  the  country,  if 
attacked  without  provocation.  Such  a  situation  does  not  confront  us. 
We  are  at  war,  not  because  we  are  attacked,  but  because  certain  per- 
sons with  authority  wish  to  have  us  at  war,  regardless  of  necessity  and 
regardless  of  the  popular  wishes.  Otherwise  there  would  have  been 
a  referendum  on  a  declaration  of  war  and  a  referendum  on  conscrip- 
tion. Peace  can  be  li^d  at  any  time,  without  sacrifice  of  principle,  and 
with  more  honor  than  the  most  successful  war  can  bring.  But  we 
do  not  even  know  what  we  are  fighting  for.  It  is  not  for  restitution 
of  property  destroyed  on  the  seas  or  to  avenge  slaughtered  citizens. 
That  would  not  justify  more  destruction  and  more  slaughtering.  No 
such  reasons  have  been  advanced  anyway.  But  if  we  are  at  war  for 
that  reason  what  is  it  that  Germany  must  do  to  atone  for  these  crimes? 
How  can  she  agree  to  do  it,  if  she  has  not  been  told? 

We  have  been  told  that  it  is  a  war  for  democracy.  Well,  any 
people  that  are  determined  to  have  democracy  can  have  it  without  war. 
When  Russia  definitely  decided  to  send  the  Czar  packing,  she  did  not 
need  to  wait  for  a  victory  over  Germany  to  do  so.  She  simply  sent 
him  away.  We  can  get  democracy  in  the  United  States,  too,  when- 
ever we  get  as  ready  for  it  as  Russia  is. 

If  the  object  is  to  force  democracy  on  Germany,  regardless  of 
the  wishes  of  the  German  people,  it  must  fail.  Democracy  is  not  to 
be  obtained  by  abdication  of  the  Hohenzollern  dynasty,  under  pressure 
from  outside  of  Germany.  Until  the  German  people' want  democracy 
it  will  be  impossible  to  give  it  to  them.  They  may  be  compelled  to 
accept  the  form,  but  the  spirit  will  be  lacking  as  completely  as  in  the 
United  States  army  under  conscription.  And  it  will  be  undemocratic 
anyway  to  force  democracy  on  those  who  do  not  want  it. 

But  we  should  be  told  definitely  what  it  is  we  want  Germany 
to  do  in  return  for  which  we  will  make  peace.  By  "we"  I  mean  the 
United  States.  We  need  not  woriy  about  what  Great  Britain  wants, 
France  wants  or  any  other  belligerent  wants.  Unless  the  American 
people  have  been  lied  to,  we  did  not  enter  the  war  on  their  account. 

We  should  not  only  be  told  what  is  wanted,  but  if  a  majority 
of  the  American  people  do  not  care  to  hold  out  for  the  terms  sug- 
gested, they  should  have  the  power  to  insist  on  peace  on  other  terms, 
if  they  see  fit.  Democracy  should  begin  at  home;  and  the  first  fight 
that  democracy  must  win  is  the  fight  against  conscription  and  against 
war  without  consent  of  the  people. 

We  are  told  by  the  President's  proclamation  that  it  is  to  be  "in 
no  sense  a  conscription  of  the  unwilling."  Mark  the  words  "in  no 
sense."  That  leaves  no  room  for  quibbling  about  it  later.  If  the  Pres- 
ident speaks  the  truth  then  not  a  single  objector  to  military  service, 
conscientious   or   otherwise,    will   be    compelled   against    his    will    to 

65 


bear  arms.  Who  believes  that  conscription  will  be  carried  out  in 
any  such  way?  I  fear  that  the  drafting  process  will  not  long  be 
in  operation  before  Mr.  Wilson  will  be  explaining  that  in  more  senses 
than  one  it  is  conscription  of  the  unwilling. 

We  are  in  a  war  which  we  are  told  is  to  save  democracy  for 
the  world.  We  begin  it  by  destroying  democracy.  This  is  shown  not 
only  by  the  bulldozing  of  Congress  into  declaration  of  war  and  pass- 
ing a  conscription  law  without  a  popular  referendum,  but  by  the  as- 
sumption of  autocratic  powers  everywhere.  Even  now  the  adminis- 
tration is  again  demanding  that  the  press  be  gagged.  Everywhere  pub- 
lic speakers  are  arrested  for  exercising  their  constitutional  rights  and 
the  courts  are  either  too  prejudiced  or  too  timid  to  declare  the  ille- 
gality of  such  proceedings,  order  the  victims  released,  and  make 
clear  the  guilt  of  officials  who  have  used  their  authority  in  this 
way. 

Our  State  Department  has  taken  upon  itself  to  dictate  with  whom 
private  American  citizens  traveling  in  foreign  land  may  speak.  It 
has  refused  passports  to  the  delegates  to  the  Stockholm  Conference. 
Why?  Not  in  the  interest  of  democracy,  that  is  certain.  These  dele- 
gates were  devoted  to  democracy  long  before  Secretary  Lansing  knew 
there  was  such  a  thing.  They  have  sacrificed  more  for  the  cause  of 
democracy  than  any  man  connected  with  the  administration  has  yet 
shown  himself  capable  of  even  considering.  And  they  are  ready  to  do 
much  more.  The  conference  they  wish  to  attend  is  one  of  thorough 
democrats  and  the  interests  of  democracy  is  their  first  consideration. 
It  is  only  fear,  lest  they  may  do  something  to  show  that  democracy 
can  be  saved  by  peace,  much  better  than  by  war,  that  caused  them 
to  be  stopped. 

"And  to  our  shame  be  it  noted :  The  German  autocracy  has  issued 
passports  to  Stockholm  to  her  Socialist  delegates,  knowing  that  they 
are  going  to  confer  with  delegates  from  so-called  enemy  countries.  It 
seems  to  recognize  to  that  extent  anyway — by  acts,  if  not  by  words, 
that  its  fight  is  not  with  the  people.  But  we  are  so  sure  that  we  have 
no  quarrel  with  the  German  people  that  we  forbid  American  citizens 
under  a  strained  construction  of  a  resurrected  eighteenth  century 
statute  to  speak  with  representatives  of  the  German  people. 

Rev.  Richard  W.  Hogue,  Director  Open  Forum,  Baltimore,  Md. :  The 
War  and  the  Spirit  of  America. 

We  are  at  war  with  our  Government  in  the  announced  motive 
and  purpose  of  the  country's  call  to  arms.  We  are  sincere  and  con- 
scientious objectors  to  the  adoption  of  the  method  set  before  us,  not 
only  because  of  history's  evidence  of  its  futility,  but  because  of  its 
injury  to  liberty,  its  damage  to  democracy  and  its  substitution  of  auto- 
cratic compulsion  for  their  inalienable  freedom  of  conscience  which 
is  the  very  foundation  of  the  republic.  There  is  abundant  proof  of  the 
truth  of  this  last  staternent.  The  proof  reaches  from  the  action  of  the 
trustees  of  Toledo  University  in  opening  its  doors  for  the  egress  of 

66 


Scott  Nearing  to  the  action  of  Columbia  in  closing  its  doors  to  the 
message  of  Count  Tolstoi. 

There  are  one  or  two  brief  illustrations  that  I  bring  to  you  from 
Baltimore.  We  had  a  peace  meeting  in  Baltimore  before  there  had 
been  any  declaration  of  war,  except  on  the  part  of  the  press.  The 
peace  meeting,  as  you  have  read  from  the  papers,  was  broken  up.  Dr. 
Jordan  was  not  permitted  to  speak.  The  youngsters,  representing  the 
aristocratic  and  mercenary  interests,  sent  into  the  meeting  by  the  so- 
called  privileged  class  of  older  men,  who  did  not  have  the  courage  to 
follow  them,  were,  after  the  meeting,  injured  by  the  police,  strange 
to  say.  The  matter  was  made  public.  The  police  were  indicted  for 
unnecessary  cruelty.  The  young  men  were  indicted  for  inciting  a  riot 
— afterwards  changed  to  disorderly  conduct.  The  investigation  be- 
gan. I  give  you  this  just  as  an  illustration  of  what  is  happening  else- 
where in  the  interpretation  of  the  effect  of  the  war  upon  the  spirit 
of  democracy. 

Fortunately  in  this  investigation  there  was  an  unusual  element, 
namely,  the  necessity  of  self-defence  on  the  part  of  the  investigating 
parties,  the  police  department.  It  was  proven  by  sworn  confession, 
by  affidavit  and  undenied  fact,  that  the  breaking  up  of  the  meeting 
was  the  result  of  a  conspiracy  formed  very  largely  in  the  ammunition 
plants.  We  have  the  confession  of  men  working  in  those  plants.  This 
led  to  the  failure  of  the  backers  of  the  disturbers  of  public  meetings 
to  prosecute  the  police,  and  the  matter  is  at  a  standstill.  Marshall  Cot- 
ter, the  head  of  our  police  force,  furnishes  an  illustration  that  is 
interesting  and  perhaps  profitable.  He  said  in  the  press,  or  was 
reported  in  the  press  to  have  said,  and  did  not  deny  it,  that  no  wonder 
the  meeting  was  broken  up,  because  of  the  unpatriotic  utterances  of  the 
speaker,  Mr.  Benjamin  Marsh,  who  actually  claimed  that  the  oppo- 
nents to  peace  w€re  largely  among  the  ammunition  makers. 

After  investigating  for  the  purpose  of  defending  his  own  police, 
he  came  home  one  day  and  put  his  hand  on  my  shoulder  and  said: 
"We  have  got  them  and  the  strange  thing  about  it  is,  Mr.  Hogue,  that 
we  have  found  absolute  proof  of  the  statement  of  your  men  that  the 
ammunition  makers  and  bankers  are  behind  this  whole  thing."  T  was 
either  too  stunned,  too  kind  hearted  or  too  politic  to  remind  him  of 
the  inconsistency  of  his  conclusion. 

Following  that  meeting,  there  was  another  incident.  A  Socialist, 
an  employee  of  the  post  office,  was  arrested  for  the  alleged  knocking 
over  of  a  reading  desk  (as  reported  in  the  papers).  It  happened 
to  be  a  tiny  music  stand,  that  would  not  have  hurt  even  a  pacifist 
if  it  had  hit  him.  Without  due  course  of  trial,  though  under  civil 
service,  without  permission  to  summon  a  witness,  he  was  discharged 
from  his  position.  There  were  those  of  us  who  would  have  taken  it  up 
but  for  the  fact  that  the  man  himself  did  not  wish  to  be  reinstated. 
He  preferred  freedom  to  a  job.  Part  of  that  freedom  he  is  exercising 
by  being  on  the  floor  of  this  convention  to-day. 

The  open  forum  was  implicated  by  the  newspapers  and  by  the 
parties  Who  destroyed  the  peace  meeting  in  the  affair.     Anonymous 

67 


letters  were  written  to  the  manager  of  the  theatre,  which  we  had 
engaged  for  the  entire  year,  and  the  result  has  been  another  illustra- 
tion of  the  spirit  of  the  war  upon  freedom  of  assemblage,  in  that 
the  theatre  has  been  closed  to  us — even  to  the  Open  Forum.  We  bided 
our  time,  and  permitted  the  psychological  effect  of  evident  injustice 
to  win  its  way  in  the  community,  which  it  has  done,  and  on  last  Sunday 
we  opened  the  Open  Forum  in  a  hall  formerly  endowed  and  owned 
by  Johns  Hopkins  University,  and  the  man  who  introduced  our  speaker 
was  a  professor  of  this  school,  although  the  country  all  over  reported 
that  the  professors  of  this  university  were  among  those  that  disturbed 
the  peace  meeting.  Next  Sunday  we  have  the  concluding  session,  the 
speaker  being  Congressman  Jeannette  Rankin,  on  "Democracy  and 
Government." 

I  want  to  quote  to  you  a  letter  that  I  just  received,  which  I  believe 
to  be  more  widespread  in  its  application  than  we  perhaps  realize  to-day. 
A  Harvard  student — typical,  clean  cut,  high  minded  and  thoroughly 
loyal  in  his  Americanism — enlisted  in  the  officers'  reserve  corps  and  is 
in  training.  He  happens  to  be  closely  related  to  me,  and  so  this  letter 
came,  at  the  conclusion  of  which  were  these  singularly  significant  sen- 
tences: "Sherman  is  wrong.  War  is  not  hell.  It  is  worse  than  hell." 
And  then  he  proceeded  very  briefly  to  give  the  impression  that  came 
to  his  soul,  I  think  one  might  say,  as  he  handled  the  deadly  and 
devilish  implements  by  which  men  now  kill  other  men.  He  wound  up 
by  saying,  "You  and  your  wife  are  fortunate  that  this  is  a  case  in 
which  the  wife  and  the  husband  are  together  on  pacifism.  You  and 
your  wife  are  dead  right  through  and  through  in  your  stand  for  peace, 
but  at  this  crisis  of  the  world's  history,  we  have  got  to  overthrow 
autocracy."    Of  course,  you  know,  he  had  to  add  that. 

The  repression  of  liberty  of  speech  is  the  foundation  of  injustice 
and  the  origin  of  anachy.  And  the  presence  of  the  ideal  and  the 
influence  of  the  forces  of  love  is  the  only  enduring  power  by  which 
you  or  I  or  humanity  can  stand  the  test  of  this  hour  of  crisis,  or  of 
any  other  in  the  days  to  come. 

Gij:.BERT  E.  Roe,  President,  Free  Speech  League  of  America,  New 
York.    Free  Speech,  Free  Press  and  the  Right  of  Assemblage. 

The  provision  of  the  constitution  guaranteeing  the  rights  of  free 
speech,  free  press  and  freedom  of  assemblage  is  still  in  force.  It  has 
not  been  repealed  yet,  the  censorship  bill  of  the  country  notwithstand- 
ing. And  I  want  to  tell  you  that  under  those  provisions  of  the  con- 
stitution, you  have  got  a  right  to  discuss  every  act  of  your  Government 
and  every  act  of  the  officials  of  your  Government.  I  don't  care  whether 
it  is  a  declaration  of  war,  or  a  treaty  of  peace — ^I  don't  care  whether 
it  is  a  tariff  act,  or  a  draft  act.  So  long  as  that  provision  of  the 
constitution  stands,  we  people  of  this  country  have  got  a  right  to 
discuss  those  subjects. 

We  have  got  a  right  to  commend  or  condemn  the  acts  of  our 
representative  with   regard  to  those  subjects.  .  And  we  have  got  a 

68 


right,  if  the  acts  of  our  representatives  do  not  suit  us,  to  remove 
them  and  put  others  in  their  places.  I  have  here  the  present 
censorship  bill.  There  are  two  provisions  of  the  censorship 
bill  equally  obnoxious  to  free  speech  and  the  free  press.  One  comes 
under  the  heading  of  the  mails,  the  other  comes  under  the  heading  of 
espionage.  The  papers  have  said  very  little  about  the  use  of  the  mails 
as  it  is  forbidden  to  certain  classes  of  matter  under  this  bill,  but  in 
this  country  to-day  if  you  can  shut  out  of  the  mails  matter  w^hich 
some  post  office  official  inferior,  stupid,  and  bigoted  may  declare  to 
be  seditious,  anarchistic,  or  treasonable,  why  you  can  control  what 
the  people  shall  read  in  this  country  more  effectually  than  any  press 
censorship,  and  that  is  what  one  of  the  provisions  of  this  bill  attempted 
to  do. 

Now,  the  other  provision,  and  the  provision  which  the  newspapers 
are  very  much  alive  to  is  the  provision  that  provides  that  when  the 
United  States  is  at  war  the  publishing  wilfully  of  information  with 
respect  to  the  movement,  numbers,  description  or  disposition  of  any 
of  the  armed  forces  of  the  United  States  and  military  operation  is 
against  the  law,  and  that  the  President  may,  from  time  to  time,  by 
proclamation  declare  the  character  of  such  above  described  informa- 
tion, which  is,  or  may  be,  unlawful. 

Before  they  had  the  revolution  in  China,  there  was  a  provision  of 
the  Chinese  Penal  Code  which  for  definiteness  and  informing  a  man 
whether  he  has  committed  a  crime  or  not,  I  would  recommend  be 
substituted  for  this  provision  of  the  Espionage  Bill.  Here  is  the  way 
it  read:  "Whoever  is  guilty  of  improper  conduct,  and  of  such  as  is 
contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  law,  though  not  a  breach  of  any  specific 
part  of  it,  shall  be  punished  by  at  least  forty  blows,  and  when  the 
impropriety  is  of  a^serious  nature,  with  eighty  blows." 

Now  that  was  the  Penal  Code  of  China  before  they  abolished  the 
empire  over  there,  and  it  is  a  good  deal  more  satisfactory  as  a  designa- 
tion of  what  constitutes  a  crime,  than  the  Espionage  Bill  which  the 
administration  is  demanding  of  the  Congress  that  it  should  pass, 
because  the  Espionage  Bill  just  leaves  it  up  to  the  President  to  say 
what  information  relating  to  the  army,  its  movements,  its  equipment, 
anything  about  it,  shall  be  regarded  as  a  crime  to  give  out  to  the  people. 

You  know  it  is  awfully  hard  to  be  much  of  a  pacifist  and  discuss 
this  thing.  But  fortunately  the  newsppaers  are  taking  pretty  good 
care  of  this  feature  of  the  Censorship  Bill.  The  newspapers  are  going 
to  see  to  it  that  they  discuss  pretty  thoroughly  the  manner  in  which 
the  war  is  conducted.  I  notice  in  the  press  dispatches  that  the  Press 
Censorship  Bureau,  which  they  have  organized  down  in  Washington, 
put  out  a  document  the  other  day,  and  in  it  they  said  that  the  Depart- 
ment of  State  disapproved  of — now  I  am  quoting  from  the  pamphlet, 
"Discussion  of  difference  of  opinion  between  the  Allies,  and  difficulties 
with  neutral  countries.'*  That  is  one  thing  that  they  disapprove  of 
discussing.  Also  "that  it  disapproved  speculation  as  to  possible  peace." 
Another  thing,  also,  "That  it  disapproves  anything  likely  to  prove 
offensive  to  any  of  the  Allies  or  the  neutrals." 

69 


Now  after  you  have  expurgated  your  conversation  in  accordance 
with  the  directions  of  the  Press  Censorship  Bureau  you  may  be  per- 
fectly safe,  but  you  will  be  mighty  uninteresting.  Now  notice  that  they 
say  here  what  they  don't  want  you  to  discuss — they  are  just  putting 
this  out  as  a  feeler.  If  you  will  stand  for  it,  you  will  get  the  law 
after  a  little. 

Coming  down  on  the  train  this  morning,  I  clipped  this  out  of  the 
New  York  Times,  and  the  New  York  Times  says  that  this  is  a  com- 
munication from  the  Workmen's  and  Soldier's  Delegation  in  Petrograd 
to  Great  Britain.  Here  is  what  the  Times  said  they  said  to  the  English 
"What  about  the  historic  injustices  committed  by  yourselves?  And 
your  violent  oppression  of  Ireland,  India,  Egypt,  and  innumerable 
peoples  inhabiting  all  the  continents  of  the  world?  If  you  are  so 
anxious  for  justice,  that  you  are  prepared,  in  its  name  to  send  millions 
of  people  to  the  grave,  then,  gentlemen,  begin  with  yourselves."  If 
that  is  sedition,  prosecute  the  New  York  Times.  I  hope  if  this  Con- 
ference does  nothing  else,  it  will  go  on  record  as  declaring  that  every 
newspaper  and  every  citizen  in  this  country  has  an  inalienable  right  to 
discuss  the  war,  and  every  feature  of  it,  that  they  have  a  right  to  dis- 
cuss its  beginning,  and  they  have  a  right  to  discuss  its  ending.  They 
have  a  right  to  discuss  the  causes  that  led  up  to  it,  and  they  have  a 
right  to  discuss  the  policies  that  should  terminate  it.  More  than  all 
this,  they  have  a  right  and  it  is  the  most  solemn  duty  of  the  voters 
at  the  first  opportunity  to  elect  to  office  only  those  representatives  who 
are  obeying  the  will  of  the  majority  of  the  people  of  the  country. 

Now,  just  a  word  in  conclusion.  I  believe  that  the  great  body 
of  American  citizenship  are  going  to  be  fair.  They  are  going  to  be 
honest — they  are  going  to  be  patriotic,  and  they  are  going  to  put  first 
and  foremost  the  interests  of  this  country.  I  believe  that  is  going  to 
be  done.  There  may  be  extremists  on  both  sides.  That  is  always  true, 
but  the  great  body  of  slow-moving,  hard-headed,  common-sense  Ameri- 
can people  lie  between,  and  after  all  they  are  going  to  determine  what 
is  going  to  be  done.  Remember  that  what  may  seem  so  very  plain  to 
you  is  not  so  very  plain  to  someone  who  has  not  thought  along  your 
lines,  but  do  not  be  "bluffed"  on  this  subject  of  Free  Speech.  Remember 
that  the  first  amendment  of  the  constitution  stands.  I  would  say  it 
with  greater  emphasis  if  I  were  a  member  of  the  forces  of  the  present 
Administration,  for  I  want  to  say  if  any  administration  in  this  country 
wants  to  seek  trouble  it  will  find  it  along  the  line  of  denying  the 
constitutional  rights  of  Free  Speech  and  of  Free  Press.  I  have  no 
patience  with  the  claim  that  Democrats  cannot  fight  a  war.  Oh, 
Democrats  can  fight  a  war  all  right,  but  Democrats  want  to  select 
the-  war  they  are  going  to  fight.  That  means  simply  that  we  want  to 
talk  about  it.  We  want  to  think  it  over.  We  want  to  make  up  our 
minds  what  is  the  right  thing  to  do,  and  then  we  are  going  to  do  the 
right  thing,  and  we  are  not  going  to  Mexico  or  California,  or  anywhere 
else,  to  escape  obligations. 

70 


Rev.  Norman  M.  Thomas,  of  the  Fellowship  of  Reconciliation,  New 
York  City :  Conscription  and  the  Conscientious  Objection. 

May  I  begin  by  making  it  plain  that  the  problem  of  Conscription 
is  by  no  means  exclusively  the  problem  of  the  Conscientious  Objector. 
1  need  not  take  time  to  remind  you  that  nearly  every  militaristic  paper 
is  working  hard  and  continually  for  the  enactment  of  universal  military 
training  and  service.  We  have  got  to  fight  that  thing,  and  fight  it  hard 
and  continually.  There  are  certain  arguments  continually  advanced 
in  favor  of  it.  They  are  either  astonishingly  unreflective  or  else  dis- 
honest. For  instance,  we.  are  told  that  an  army  of  a  proletariat  is  in 
itself  a  democratic  army,  as  opposed  to  a  hired  army.  Now  I  need 
hardly  say  that  some  of  us,  call  us  what  you  will,  are  out  to  rid  the 
world  of  the  curse  of  militarism  and  therefore  we  are  not  shut  up  to 
these  alternatives.  But  there  is  another  thing.  It  is  astonishing  to 
say  that  because  you  take  the  sons  of  the  people  and  train  them  to 
fight,  therefore  you  have  a  democratic  army.  What  becomes  of  the 
officers?  What  becomes  of  the  machine  guns?  Do  the  people  keep 
possession  of  them?  You  take  our  young  men  at  the  most  impression- 
able age — you  subject  them  to  a  well-thought-out  system  of  military 
training.  You  know  that  Major-General  O'Ryan  told  us  once  and  for 
all  what  the  purpose  of  military  training  is.  It  is  to  do  what  we  call, 
when  we  are  dealing  with  animals — ''breaking  the  will"  to  habits  of 
automatic  and  unquestioning  obedience,  and  these  are  not  habits  which 
make  a  great  democracy.  They  are  not  the  habits  by  which  the  un- 
numbered social  problems  of  the  world  are  to  be  solved.  Moreover, 
you  cannot  discipline  men's  minds  in  this  way  without  inspiring  thern 
with  an  intense  nationalism  and  glorifying  war.  Therefore,  we  are 
told  that  to  preserve  peace  in  the  world,  and  democracy,  we  must 
adopt  that  system  which  has  bulwarked  autocracy  and  made  it  possible 
to  precipitate  this  terrible  conflict. 

As  for  the  selective  draft  that  we  now  have,  it  is  a  condition  and 
not  a  theory  which  confronts  us.  In  it  is  involved  the  beginning  of 
a  theory  of  government  which  is  not  democratic  or  true  to  American 
traditions.  The  public  should  know  exactly  what  we  have  got  in  order 
that  they  may  begin  a  systematic  agitation  for  its  repeal.  However 
improbable  that  repeal  is  in  time  of  war,  there  is  an  educational  value 
in  making  the  public  see  facts,  and  see  them  plainly,  stripped  of  a 
great  deal  of  the  embellishment  which  has  been  put  upon  them.  In 
the  first  place,  men  are  affected  who  are  not  the  stock  of  which  martyrs 
are  made.  They  are  not  conscientious  objectors.  Yet  these  have  possi- 
bilities of  useful  service.  Now  they  are  told  that  they  must  be  regi- 
mented to  fight,  not  for  their  homes,  but  thousands  of  miles  away  in  a 
war  which  maybe  they'd  ought  to  understand,  but  which  they  do  not 
understand,  on  the  order  of  a  Government  which  has  not  appealed 
to  the  people,  either  on  the  issue  of  the  war,  or  upon  Conscription  itself. 
I  can  understand  how  Robert  Brooke  went  out  to  battle  with  a  sort 
of  exaltation.  He  saw  a  great  issue,  which  made  war  a  holy  crusade, 
and  lifted  up  his  soul  above  the  horrible  demoralization  of  the  battle- 
field.    No  such  partial  redemption  comes  to  the  poor  conscript  who 

71 


is  suddenly  taken  from  his  home  and  friends,  and  told  he  must  fight. 
What  will  be  the  effect  upon  future  citizens  of  America  of  subjecting 
them  to  that  sort  of  thing?  We  ought  to  ask  tlie  American  public, 
which  after  all  is  the  last  court  of  resort,  to  think  on  these  things. 

Now  we  come  to  the  problem  of  the  conscientious  objector.  It 
seems  to  me  that  conscientious  objectofs  may  be  classified  in  two  ways : 
first,  those  who  object  to  this  war,  either  on  sentimental  or  rational 
grounds,  and  those  that  object  to  all  wars  on  social  or  religious  grounds. 
I  have  talked  personally  to  young  Americans  of  German  birth,  to  whom 
this  issue  is  a  tragedy  of  the  deepest  sort.  They  are  loyal  Americans. 
They  have  not  one  thought  of  treason.  Some  of  them  would  do  al- 
ternative service  for  their  country,  but  the  thought  of  being  conscripted 
to  fight  against  those  who  are  their  kith  and  kin  is  too  bitter  for  their 
souls.  Is  that  an  emotion  to  be  crushed?  Would  not  that  impulse 
be,  in  the  minds  of  a  wise  government,  a  very  basis  for  building  up 
more  wholesome  international  relations  in  the  future.  Why  must 
we  becloud  issues?  These  men,  I  repeat,  are  not  pro-Germans,  but 
they  are  men  whose  hearts  are  being  broken,  by  service  that  may  be 
forced  upon  them. 

The  conscientious  objector  to  all  wars  may  be  classified  in  various 
ways  by  the  description  of  his  objection.  (1)  There  are  certain 
religious  sects  who  because  their  scriptures  say,  "Thou  shalt  not  kill*' 
will  not  kill,  but  will  accept  non-combatant  service — even  the  making  of 
munitions.  (2)  There  are  those  who  will  accept  alternative  service; 
such  as  relief  work,  the  raising  of  food,  etc.  They  would  argue  that 
in  time  of  war,  if  a  man  does  any  useful  work  at  all,  he  is  giving  his 
strength  to  the  support  of  tlie  Government.  (3)  There  is  a  third  class 
who  say  that  any  compulsory  change  of  occupation  in  time  of  war  is 
essentially  a  war  service  and  that  the  logic  of  that  position  demands 
that  the  person,  no  matter  how  much  he  may  love  his  country,  has 
to  show  that  love  by  putting  conscience  and  convictions  first,  and 
tlierefore  he  will  not,  at  whatever  cost  to  himself,  accept  compulsion. 
This  third  position  is  clearly  heroic  and  perhaps  most  clearly  logical. 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  the  conscientious  objector  is  an  anti-social 
creature.  He  wants  to  save  his  own  soul.  It  is  not  fair  to  say  that  the 
conscientious  objector  is  primarily  a  "passivist,"  that  is,  a  man  who 
does  nothing  at  all,  but  lets  the  world  wag  its  own  way.  A  conscien- 
tious objector  of  the  real  stamp  is  the  man  who  believes  that  there  is 
a. better  way  than  by  killing;  that  there  are  economic  and  spiritual 
methods  which  would  solve  the  problems  of  the  world  a  thousand  times 
more  efficiently  than  by' war.  The  conscientious  objector  of  that  stamp 
does  not  for  one  moment  countenance  the  ravaging  of  Belgium  or  the 
sinking  of  the  Lusitania.  He  is  a  man  who  abhors  that  sort  of  thing 
so  much  that  he  is  convinced  that  violence  does  not  cure  violence — 
that  hate  is  not  conquered  by  hate — that  you  cannot  conquer  Prussian 
militarism  by  Prussianizing  the  free  nations  of  the  world.  He  is  one 
of  those  prophets  who  are  trying  to  work  out  the  redemption  of  man- 
kind. It  is  at  least  a  surprising  thing  that  outside  of  the  church  I  have 
never  met  any  man  who  did  not  believe  that  Jesus,  of  Nazareth,  would 

72 


have  been  a  conscientious  objector.  It  is  only  inside  the  church  that 
people  have  doubts.  And  I  know  of  nothing  more  appalling  to  all 
lovers  of  liberty  and  of  the  free  human  spirit  than  to  say  that  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  or  men  of  His  spirit — brave,  free  souls,  would  have  to 
be  regimented  to  go  out  to  kill  or  else  be  called  cowards  and  slackers 
and  scum  of  the  earth.  What  has  come  over  the  American  people 
that  that  sort  of  thing  should  be  done?  Hope  for  the  world  springs  out 
of  the  idealism  of  the  man  who  sees  the  star  and  follows  that  star, 
rather  than  the  will-o'-the-wisp  of  advantage.  You  may  not  agree 
with  that  man's  conscience.  I  am  not  pleading  for  your  agreement, 
1  am  pleading  with  you  to  consider  who  is  to  save  the  world  if  we  are 
to  crush  our  idealists,  our  dreamers ;  to  think  of  that  hideous  evil 
which  is  done  when  the  Government  takes  the  man  who  was  made  to 
be  the  leader  of  mankind  in  science,  in  art  and  thought,  and  conscripts 
him  for  the  purpose  of  being  cannon  fodder  or  for  the  purpose  of 
destroying  his  fellow  men,  which  is  far  worse  to  this  man's  conscience. 
Therefore  I  beg  you  to  remember  that  the  conscientious  objector  is 
not  anti-social,  that  in  him  is  hope  for  the  world,  and  this,  despite 
such  eloquent  champions  as  an  ex-President  of  the  United  States  and 
others  of  the  opposite  view. 

But  my  plea  is  not  primarily  for  the  conscientious  objector;  if  he 
be  of  the  stock  of  which  martyrs  are  made  he  will  prove  once  more 
that  martyrs  advance  causes,  even  more  than  brave  soldiers.  But  I 
plead  for  our  country — for  the  America  that  we  have  loved — for  the 
tradition  which  has  made  some  of  us  through  all  our  days  think  of 
America  as  the  home  of  the  exiled  for  conscience's  sake.  Never  mind 
what  particular  kind  of  conscience  drove  our  fathers  here.  The  best 
blood  of  America  was  furnished  by  men  who  left  home  and  friends  and 
country  to  follow  their  dream,  and  from  the  Pilgrim  faithers  until  the 
last  immigrant  for  conscience's  sake,  America  has  stood  forth  for  the 
tradition  of  freedom  of  conscience — without  which  there  is  no  religion, 
and  without  which  there  is  no  democracy.  What  have  we  to  offer  to 
the  world,  if  that  tradition  be  taken  away  from  us?  What  conceivable 
service  ranks  with  the  service  that  the  republic  of  the  West  has  ren- 
dered to  mankind?  I  am  speaking  not  merely  in  the  name  of  tradition, 
1  am  speaking  in  the  name  of  democracy  herself.  Autocracy  may  exist 
by  armed  coercion  of  individual  will.  Democracy  cannot  so  exist,  and 
to  stifle  the  liberty  of  conscience  of  the  man  who  is  trying  to  think, 
is  for  democracy  to  inflict  perhaps  a  slow,  but  nevertheless  a  mortal 
wound  upon  herself.  There  is  one  weapon,  and  one  weapon  alone, 
known  to  a  democracy  to  convert  the  foolish  man,  and  that  is  the 
weapon  of  reason — of  the  power  of  ideas,  and  that  weapon  you  deny. 

My  position  religously,  my  every  convicton  makes  me,  if  you 
will,  an  extreme  foe  of  war — I  will  not  say  a  non-resistant,  because 
I  believe  there  are  forms  of  existence  of  the  highest  type,  but  I  am 
opposed  absolutely  to  organized  violence;  therefore  I  would  see  with 
sorrow  any  violent  resistance  to  this  law,  because  I  believe  it  is  the 
wrong  method.  I  cannot  make  that  too  plain,  and  yet  I  know 
mankind  well  enough  to  feel  reasonably  certain  that  the  Govern- 

73 


ment  cannot  suddenly  turn  from  old  established  institutions  in 
America  without  ineeting  with  violence,  and  for  that  reason  I 
plead  that  Amerca  consider  these  things.  And  I  plead  for  a  deeper 
reason.  To  \Vhat  purpose  is  the  investment  of  life  by  thousands 
of  men  who  have  gone  to  fight  for  ideals?  If,  after  all,  we  get 
the  Prussian  state?  And  what  is  the  difference  between  a  Prus- 
sian state  and  a  democratic  state — that  one  has  an  hereditary  Kaiser 
and  the  other  an  elected  President?  We  are  not  in  the  kinder- 
garten. It  is  more  fundamental.  It  is  this:  The  Prussian  state 
is  above  the  moral  law  and  individuals  exist  for  the  state.  The 
dem'ocratic  state  must  be  guided  by  the  moral  law,  and  it  exists 
for  the  well-being  of  great  companes  of  individuals.  Now,  democ- 
racy demand's  imutual  accomodation.  It  does  not  demand  the  sur- 
rendering of  that  very  thing  which,  if  a  man  be  religious  at  all, 
he  be'lieves  to  prove  him  the  son  of  God.  To  substitute  the  Prus- 
sian ideal  for  the  American  ideal  in  a  war  to  make  the  world  safe  for 
democracy  is  a  cause  for  anguish  on  the  part  of  those  who  love  America. 
What  is  there  then  that  we  can  do  for  this  thing?  I  have  already  said 
that  we  can  educate  the  public  looking  to  the  repeal  of  conscription. 
We  can  give  legal,  material,  moral  aid  to  thfe  conscientious  ob- 
jector. We  can  seek  for  such  liberal  exemption  power  as  denies 
as  little  as  possb'le  of  American  liberties.  The  law  exempts  the 
Quakers.  Conscience  is  not  corporate ;  it  is  individual.  Let  us 
demand  that  this  principle  be  recognized  in  the  administration  of 
the  law  even  while  we  urge  its  amendment  in  accordance  Avitb 
justice. 

We  must  continually  appeal  to  the  might  of  ideals  even  in  the 
midst  of  war,  and  yet,  if  we  want  to  serve  liberty  in  the  w^orld,  there 
is,  in  my  judgment,  one  fundamental  call,  and  that  is  to  work  for 
universal  deimocratic  peace.  Even  without  conscription  the  war 
psychology  inevitably  exerts  coercions  over  men's  minds  of  a  terrible 
sort.  For  example,  there  is  no  conscription  law  compelling  one  to 
buy  Liberty  Bonds,  and  yet,  if  the  Evening  Telegram  is  correct,  a 
certain  gentleman  in  Chicago  gave  advice  to  his  salesmen  in  this 
wise:  ''If  a  man  does  not  buy  your  bond  knock  him  down."  This 
is  liberty  as  it  someti'mes  exists  in  war  times.  And  the  war  psy- 
chology can  be  cured  in  the  end  only  by  peace  in  the  right  terms, 
democratic  and  universal.  Therefore,  there  is  no  more  fundamental 
service  we  can  render  than  to  make  men  think  and  act  along  lines 
that  lead  to  peace.  And  now  my  time  is  up,  save  for  one  quotation. 
There  is  one  sign  of  help,  a  s-ign  of  help  dear  to  me,  for  I  am  a 
minister  of  the  church,  and  I  love  the  church,  in  spite  of  her 
failures.  The  thing  that  I  want  to  read  is  the  declaration  of  the 
Federal  Council  of  Churches  of  Christ  of  America.  "When  the  state 
compels  men  to  military  service  it  raises  the  ancient  religious  question 
of  freedom  of  conscience.  Churches  which  have  furnished  martyrs  for 
this  principle  are  under  particular  obligation  to  see  that  the  conscien- 
tious objector  is  allowed  such  non-combatant  service  as  does  not  violate 
his  conscience.    We,  therefore,  request  the  administrative  committee  to 

74 


carefully  consider  what  practical  steps  can  be  taken  to  secure  this  end." 
This  is  something  from  the  church.  It  shows  that  there  is  an  uneasy 
conscience  in  America  even  now.  Let  us  appeal  like  men  to  that  con- 
science. Let  us  appeal  for  that  which  is  holy,  which  alone  will  make  the 
world  safe  for  democracy,  and  that  is  the  right  of  the  human  conscience 
to  be  formed  freely  without  compulsory  military  training,  and  to 
be  exercised  freely,  guided  by  the  principle  of  loA^e  for  one's  kind. 

Harry   Weinberger,    Counsel    American    Legal    Defensie    League, 
New  York  :  The  First  Casualties  in  War. 

You  will  always  have  as  much  liberty  as  you  have  the  courage 
to  take.  I  don't  believe  that  we  should  Avait  until  the  end  of  the 
Wiar  to  demand  and  take  our  liberties  in  this  country.  I  don't 
believe  that  any  country  has  the  right  to. force  into  the  army  or  to 
compel  any  individual  to  do  any  work  against  his  conscience.  I 
believe  that  the  highest  law  of  this  country,  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  guarantees  every  man  that  right.  In  the  darkest 
hours  of  the  Revolution  Thomas  Paine  wrote,  **These  are  the  times 
that  try  men's  souls."  And  we  can  say  the  same.  History  sihows 
that  the  first  casualties  of  war  are  free  speech  and  free  press  and  all 
the  liberties  of  the  people — that  is,  if  the  people  are  supine  enough 
to  allow  it. 

The  tyrannies  of  majorities  are  as  bad  as  tyrannies  of  kings 
and  force  is  never  a  remedy.  Are  you  going  to  wait  for  peace  to 
maintain  your  rights  or  are  you  going  to  maintain  them  here  and 
now.  The  greatest  right  in  the  world  is  the  right  to  be  wrong, 
because  when  governments  or  majorities  think  you  are  right  they 
don't  interfere,  but  as  soon  as  they  think  you  are  wrong  then 
comes  ostracism,  then  comes  the  police  with  their  jails  and  torture 
and  their  fines,  taking  away  w'hatever  rights  and  liberty  you  have, 
if  you  are  willing  to  allow  them  to  be  taken  away. 

Every  right  we  have  to-day,  every  liberty  that  we  have  to-d'ay, 
was  paid  for  by  the  blood,  the  liberty,  the  happiness  of  some  indi- 
vidual in  the  past  that  had  the  courage  to  stand  up  in  the  face 
of  tyranny.  I  am  pro- American.  I  believ^e  in  liberty  as  guaranteed 
in  the  Constitution.  But  must  I  stand  silent?  Must  I  stand  weak, 
because  this  democracy  wants  to  overthrow  autocracy?  Must  I 
remain  silent  while  we  become  an  autocracy  to  overthrow  autoc- 
racy? Or  shall  we  say  to  the  world :  "If  we  fight,  we  fight  as  free 
men — not  as  slaves!" 

One  of  the  cases  that  the  American  Legal  Defense  has  defended 
in  this  city  was  that  of  a  man  w'ho  gave  out  peace  pamphlets  to 
people  who  believed  in  war,  but  I  have  not  heard  of  a  single  editor 
who  preached  war  in  the  time  of  peace  being  sent  to  jail.  I  have 
not  heard  of  a  single  editor  now  who  sells  a  war  newspaper  to  a 
Quaker  or  a  Pacifist  being  sent  to  jail.  And  if  Christ  came  back 
to   New   York   to-day   and  got  out  in   a   pamphlet   form  his   sermon 


on  the  mount  or  Moses  got  out  the  ten  commandments  in  a  pam- 
phlet form,  they  would  both  be  sent  to  the  workhouse  for  six 
months.    And  then  they  tell  lis  to  wait  till  after  the  Avar. 

I  would  repeat  the  words  of  Wend'ell  Phillips :  *'If  there  is 
anything  w'hich  cannot  bear  discussion  let  it  crack."  ''What  gov- 
ernment," says  Oliver  Cromwell,  ''except  a  despotic  government 
fears  paper  shot?" 


76 


Fifth  Session 

Thursday,  May  31,  3  P.  M. 

Job  Harriman,  Los  Angeles,  Chairman. 

FoLA  La  Follette,  New  York,  read  the  report  of  the  Committee 
on  Permanent  Organization  and  Future  Activity. 

Rebecca  Shelly,  New  York :  ''Suggestions  for  a  People's  Coitncll  of 
America." 

Congress,  as  now  constituted,  does  not  represent  the  will  of  the 
American  people.  We  believe  the  vast  majority  of  our  fellow  citizens 
want  to  express  and  make  effective  the  people's  will  on  the  question  of 
peace  or  war,  democracy  or  militarism. 

The  big  question  is,  *'How  shall  we  go  about  it."  It  is  impracti- 
cable and,  we  fear,  futile  to  start  another  society  or  league  to  work 
along  the  old  lines. 

We  propose,  therefore,  that  this  Conference  commit  itself  .to  the 
immediate  organization  of  a  People's  Council,  modeled  after  the 
Council  of  the  Workmen's  and  Soldiers'  Delegates,  which  is  the  sov- 
ereign power  in  Russia  to-day. 

The  People's  Council  should  be  made  up  of  delegates  duly  elected 
by  any  organization  or  section  of  an  organization  which  has  a  thou- 
sand bona  fide  members  and  subscribers  to  the  fundamental  aims  of  the 
People's  Council — real  democracy  at  home,  and  an  early  general  peace 
based  on  the  terms  already  announced  by  the  Russian  Government. 

Upon  this  broad  basis  of  organization  the  Council  should  include 
representatives  from  political,  social,  religious,  humanitarian,  educa- 
tional and  geographical  groups,  and  from  the  live  peace  organizations. 
But  the  majority  of  delegates  should  come  from  the  progressive  trade 
union  locals,  the  single  taxers,  the  vigorous  Socialist  locals,  the 
Granges,  the  Farmers'  Co-operative  Union  and  other  agricultural  or- 
ganizations. The  Council  should  represent  ideas,  territorial  sections 
and  voting  power.  Most  of  all,  it  should  represent  the  productive 
working  classes,  which,  if  welded  together  for  common  action  in  a 
common  cause,  will  make  their  voice  effective  in  the  councils  of  the 
nation.  At  the  outset  the  basis  of  representation  in  the  Council  might 
be  one  delegate  for  every  thousand  constituents.  Each  organization  or 
group  would  pay  the  expenses  of  its  own  delegates. 

The  first  session  of  the  People's  Council  might  begin  in  the  Mid- 
dle West  on  August  1,  with  the  immediate  object  "To  consider  ways 
and  means  of  re-establishing  representative  government  in  America 


and  to  work  for  an  early  and  lasting  peace."  While  Congress  is  in 
session,  and  especially  in  times  of  crisis,  the  Council  should  sit  in 
Washington  as  the  authoritative  spokesman  for  the  American  people. 

The  first  act  of  the  Council  might  be  to  draft  a  bill  or  resolution 
stating  concretely  the  terms  upon  which  our  government  should  make 
peace — such  a  bill  or  resolution  then  to  be  presented  to  Congress  with 
the  organized  backing  of  the  constituents  of  the  Council. 

It  should  demand  the  repeal  of  the  conscription  laws.  It  should 
defend  free  speech.  It  should  protect  our  fundamental  American  lib- 
erties. It  should  be  on  the  alert  to  safeguard  labor  standards  and  the 
rights  of  working  women  and  children.  It  should  turn  the  searchlight 
on  the  doings  of  Congress  through  a  news  bulletin. 

The  Council  should  act  also  as  a  medium  through  which  the 
democratic  leaders  and  groups  of  Europe  could  speak  to  the  people 
of  America.  Most  important  at  this  time,  it  should  interpret  the  signi- 
ficance of  the  peace  Conference  in  Stockholm.  If  our  government  per- 
sists in  refusing  passports  to  the  delegates  to  this  Conference,  the  Peo- 
ple's Council  might  invite  representatives  from  the  Stockholm  Confer- 
ence to  lay  its  findings  before  the  American  people  through  the  me- 
dium of  the  Council. 

Briefly,  the  most  essential  function  of  the  Council  would  be  to 
preserve  and  extend  democracy  at  home  and  to  work  in  co-operation 
with  the  people  of  all  the  world  for  a  speedy  general  peace,  with  no 
forcible  annexations,  no  punitive  indemnities  and  free  development  for 
all  nations. 

(The  remainder  of  the  Fifth  Session  was  devoted  to  the  informal 
discussion  of  the  Committee  report  and  Miss  Shelly's  plan.  As  the 
greater  part  of  the  discussion  pertained  to  questions  of  registry  under 
the  Conscription  Act,  June  5,  1917,  and  therefore  without  perma- 
nent value,  it  has  been  omitted  from  this  record. 

The  Resolutions  as  adopted  may  be  found  in  the  early  pages  of 
this  brochure.  Miss  Shelly's  plan  was  recommended  to  the  favor- 
able consideration  of  the  executive  committee  as  provided  for  in  the 
resolutions  on  Permanent  Organization  and  Future  Activities.) 


78 


Sixth  Session 

Thursday  Evening,  May  31,  1917 

MASS  MEETING  AT  MADISON  SQUARE  GARDEN 
Dr.  J.  L.  Magnes,  New  York,  Chairman. 

Dr.  Magnes  : 

We  haA^e  come  'here  to-night  as  law-abiding  and  peaceable 
citizens  to  dedicate  ourselves  again  to  the  cause  of  peace.  In  our 
exaltation  of  peace  and  our  abhorrence  of  war  it  is  n'ecessary  for 
us  in  these  trying  times  to  comfort  ourselves  as  honest  men  and 
women  and  at  the  same  time  show  our  allegiance  to  that  America 
which  in  the  years  that  have  passed  we  were  taught  to  love  for  her 
advocacy  of  liberty  and  democracy. 

In  order  that  there  may  be  no  possible  misinterpretation  put 
upon  our  purposes  or  our  words,  we  have  the  pleasure  perhaps 
for  the  first  time  in  an  A(mericaii  public  gathering  of  welcoming 
in  our  midst  three  representatives  of  the  United  States  Department 
of  Justice.  These  fellow  citizen's  of  ours  are  here  in  response  to 
a  mandate  of  the  Attorney  General  of  this  country,  who  has  given 
instructions  appearing  in  the  public  prints  this  morning  that  the 
officers  and  agents  of  the  Department  in  communities  wherever 
meetings  are  held  or  likely  to  be  held  at  which  agitation  against 
registration  as  prescribed  in  the  new  army  bill  might  be  indulged 
in  s'hould  be  present  iii  order  to  have  stenographi<:  reports  made  of 
the  addresses  delivered. 

I  believe  that)  the  sessions  of  our  Conference  over  two  days 
must  furnish  abundant  proof  that  it  is  not  in  the  purpose  of  the 
organizers  of  or  the  delegates  to  this  conference  that  such  activi- 
ties or  such  addresses  should  be  entered  upon.  Any  resolution  in  any 
way  advising  any  action  contrary  to  law  will  be  declared  out  of  order. 
Resolutions  that  were  this  afternoon  presented  in  connection  with 
this  conscription  questicxn  were  referred  back  by  the  conference 
to  the  executive  committee,  because  there  was  some  shadow  of 
a  doubt  as  to  whether  or  not  the  fionmulation  of  the  committee  might 
be  interpreted  as  coming  strictly  wfithin  the  law. 

We  promised  the  delegates  to  the  conference  that  at  the  end 
of  its  sessions  the  executive  committee,  together  with  such  respon- 
sible advisors  as  it  could  summon,  would  consider  as  new  resolu- 
tions, and  as  a  consequence  of  these  deliberations  the  following  reso- 
lutions are  announced  as  the  resolutions  of  our  conference  in  place 
of,  and  as  substtutes  for,  thej  draft  resolutions,  handed  in!  by  the 
comm.ittee,  and  appearing  in  the  press  this  afternoon  as  our  reso- 


liitions  before  we  had  adopted  them.  The  resolutions  which  are 
our  utterance  on  this  questiooi  are  as  follows :  These  resolutions 
we  believe  and  we  are  infonmed  on  what  we  think  good  authority 
are  strictly  within  the  law.  Otherwise  we  should  not  be  presentng 
them  here  this  night. 

"Inasmuch  as  we  believe  conscription  laws  to  be  unconstitutional, 
violating  the  thirteenth  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  we  appeal  to  the  Congress  of  the -United  States  so  to  amend 
the  conscription  act  before  June  5  as  to  grant  exemption  to  all  con- 
scientious objectors  whether  or  not  they  be  members  of  recognized 
religious  organizations. 

''Inasmuch  as  young  men  of  conscriptable  age  are  inquiring 
whether  or  not  military  registration  on  June  5  will  subject  them  imme- 
diately to  military  law  and  will  compel  them  to  work  without  the  pro- 
tection of  labor  laws,  under  any  conditions  which  the  military  executive 
may  force  upon  them, 

''And  inasmuch  as  the  legal  branch  of  the  Department  of  War  has 
up  to  the  present  time  refused  to  give  definite  information  on  this 
subject, 

"Be  it  resolved  that  this  conference  hereby  appeals  to  the  gov- 
ernment for  a  full  and  unmistakable  pronouncement  on  this  point." 

The  conference  has  decided  to  elect  an  organizing  execu- 
tive committee  of  seven  persons,  with  power  to  add  to  their  number,  in 
order  to  organize  a  permanent  delegated  People's  Council  from  all 
sympathetic  groups,  to  give  immediate  and  permanent  effect  to  the 
resolutions  of  the  conference.  It  has  been  decided  to  call  this  new 
organization  a  People's  Council — in  the  first  place,  because  we  believe 
most  sincerely  that  we  speak  for  the  Ainerican  people  and  in  the  second 
place  we  have  given  it  the  name  Council,  because  that  name  is  now  a 
new  and  glorious  word  in  the  vocabulary  of  all  free  and  liberty  loving 
men  the  world  over — ^because  the  word  Council  is  the  word  that  has 
been  given  to  their  Council  by  the  free  Russian  people. 

James  Maurer,  President  of  the  Pennsylvania  A.  F.  of  L. : 

I  assure  you  that  this  is  about  the  largest  crowd  I  ever  spoke  to, 
I  shall  give  you  my  views  as  a  workingman,  representing  nearly  500,000 
workingmen  and  women.  In  1912  the  slogan  in  Mr.  Wilson's  cam- 
paign was  that  if  they  succeeded  they  were  going  to  reduce  the  cost 
of  living.  And  they  succeeded.  Last  year  the  slogan  was,  He  kept 
us  out  of  war.  Now,  we  have  the  highest  cost  of  living  that  we  ever 
had  since  I  knew  anything  of  this  world,  and  we  are  at  war  besides. 

When  the  European  war  broke  out  President  Wilson  issued  a 
proclamation  advising  the  people  of  this  country  to  be  neutral,  and  I 
believe  that  all  of  us  of  the  common  people  tried  to  be  neutral.  I  know 
I  did.  We  soon  discovered,  however,  that  the  certain  munition  interests 
and  banking  interests  were  not  neutral.     They  were  taking  sides  by 

80 


supplying  munitions  of  war — the  food  speculators  supplying  the  food 
and  the  money  lenders  the  money,  not  to  all  the  belligerents,  but  to  one 
part  of  them.  They  did  it  so  openly.  There  was  no  objection  on  the 
part  of  the  government.  Then  they  boasted  ''that  they  are  going  to 
make  all  the  money  they  could  while  the  making  was  good,"  and  they 
made  it.  The  money  was  si>ent  with  the  interests  in  this  country,  until 
the  money  was  all  used  up.  Then  credits  were  asked  for  and  credits 
were  extended  and  they  commenced  buying  on  credit  and  the  credits 
piled  up  so  high  that  those  who  extended  credits  were  fearful  lest 
the  side  which  they  were  financing  should  lose  and  they  should  lose  their 
money.  Then  a  campaign  of  preparedness  began.  We  were  told  that 
unless  we  prepared  there  would  be  war.  Therefore,  to  escape  war, 
we  must  prepare  for  war.  We  agitated  against  the  programme,  but 
they  were  insistent  that  we  were  not  preparing  for  war,  but  we  were 
preparing  against  war.  They  insisted  that  unless  we  were  prepared 
the  Japanese  would  come  in  here  and  annihilate  us.  Another  time  it 
was  the  Allies.  They  were  at  that  time  rather  stubborn  about  our 
mails.  Then  later  on  the  Germans  would  do  it,  and  therefore  we  must 
prepare  against  invasion.  All  of  you  will  agree  that  that  was  the 
programme.  No  one  admitted  that  we  are  preparing  for  war,  only  to 
prevent  war.  The  newspapers  were  lined  up.  The  moving  pictures 
were  lined  up  and  then  the  big  parades  started  simultaneously  all  over 
this  nation — preparedness  parades — and  that  is  when  the  unorganized 
workers  got  their  first  taste  of  conscription  .  The  unorganized  were  con- 
scripted  by  their  bosses  and  told  to  go  out  and  parade. 

The  next  move  was  to  Washington,  to  convince  Congress  that 
they  needed  preparations  large  enough  to  protect  against  an  invading 
enemy.  Congress  complied  with  the  request  against  the  protest  of 
thousands — millions  of  people,  and  they  prepared.  We  said  a  year 
ago,  ''As  sure  as  you  prepare  you  will  go  to  war  just  as  the  rest  did 
who  were  prepared,"  and  sure  enough  you  did. 

Now,  friends,  we  are  at  war.  It  was  said  to-day  to  me  I  was  too 
old  and  what  need  1  care.  I  have  a  son  and  a  son-in-law,  and  be- 
sides I  have  the  working  class,  the  millions,  who  are  just  as  dear  to 
me  as  even  I  am  to  myself.  They  are  going  to  conscript  the  workers 
for  war,  but  there  has  never  been  a  word  said  yet  about  conscripting 
the  wealth  !of  the  rich  for  war.  I  say  if  it  is  right  to  enter  the  poor 
man's  home  or  the  widow's  home  to  take  the  widow's  only  son  and  say, 
"We  take  him  and  use  him  because  we  need  him" — if  that  is  right  and 
the  government  says  it  is,  then  I  want  someone  to  explain  to  me  why 
it  would  not  be  just  as  right  for  the  same  government  to  go  to  the  rich 
and  say,  "Here,  we  want  your  money,  we  are  at  war,  and  we  are 
going  to  take  it. 

We  who  stand  for  peace,  we  who  stand  for  justice,  are  condemned 
and  branded  as  cowards,  as  shrimps,  as  weaklings,  as  spineless.  Well, 
I  am  here  to  tell  you  to-night  my  long  experience  in  the  struggles  for 
the  uplift  of  the  working  class.  I  learned  to  know  men.  I  learned 
to  know  that  the  man  who  talks  the  loudest  about  fighting  can  usually 
be  found  under  the  table  when  something  starts.    We  are  asking  now — 

81 


this  Convention  that  was  here  for  two  days — what  Congress  demands. 
We  want  to  know  what  we  are  going  to  fight  about. 

We  want  to  know  what  the  peace  terms  will  be.  Surely  we  have 
a  right  to  know  (that.  They  tell  us,  the  only  reason  I  have  heard  yet, 
that  we  went  to  war  to  democratize  Europe.  If  we  are  going  to  do 
that,  let  us  make  it  the  world  while  we  are  at  it,  and  while  we  are 
democratizing  Europe,  Asia  and  Africa  let  us  not  overlook  the  fact 
that  we  ought  to  stick  right  here  on  the  job  in  the  United  States  too. 

The  request  caime  to  our  Governor  of  Pennsylvania  from  this 
Committee  of  National  Defense  in  Wasihington,  asking  him  to  appeal 
to  us  in  the  Legislature  to  suspend  our  labor  laws  in  Pennsylvania. 
We  are  to  make  that  sacrifice,  and  already  they  are  thinking  of 
i^unning  stores  day  and  night,  in  anticipation  that  we  are  going  to 
suspend  the  laws,  and  I  promise  you  to-night  that  there  is  dis- 
appointment awaiting  the  people  who  think  we  are  going  to  suspend 
the  laws  in  Pennsylvania.  England  tried  it.  When  the  war  broke 
out  in  England  they  threw  all  labor  laws  aside. 

Dr.  Magnes  (referring  to  a  slight  disturbance  created  by  several  sol- 
diers in  uniform)  : 

I  want  to  make  an  appeal  to  those  who  are  with  us  not  to  let 
themselves  be  disturbed  by  a  mere  handful  of  our  dear  soldier  boys. 
If  they,  wearing  the  insignia  of  the  United  States,  to  whose  laws  we 
owe  obedience,  choose  to  create  a  disturbance  at  a  peaceable  meeting, 
I  ask  those  of  you  who  are  with  us  not  to  reply.  That  will  help  our 
cause. 

The  next  speaker  is  one  whom  it  is  rather  difficult  to  introduce. 
It  is  difficult  to  introduce  him  because,  although  we  are  happy  to  have 
him  with  us,  we  should  much  rather  have  seen  him  now  on  his  way 
to  the  Socialist  Conference.  I  should  like  to  say  that  in  this  evening's 
papers  we  read  that  English  Socialists  will  be  at  the  Stockholm  Con- 
ference. Yesterday  we  read  that  French  Socialists  will  be  there. 
We  have  known  all  along  that  Russian  Socialists  would  be  there.  In 
all  likelihood  Italian,  Serbian  and  other  Socialists  of  our  x\llies  will 
be  there.    Only  the  representatives  of  free  America  will  be  absent. 

Morris  Hillquit: 

I  am  thankful  to  you  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart  for  your 
cordial  reception.  I  am  touched  by  the  evidence  of  your  fellowship — 
your  aftections.  I  am  proud  of  it,  but  I  want  to  say  to  you  that  your 
affection  for  me  is  as  nothing  compared  with  the  tender  regard  which 
the  government  of  this  country  is  lately  showing  to  me.  Some  time 
ago  I  made  up  my  mind  to  go  away  for  a  little  while  on  important 
business  at  Stockholm  and  I  said  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  to  the 
Administration  of  the  United  States,  "Gentlemen,  I  have  been  having 
a  perfectly  lovely  time,  but  now,  really,  I  must  go  for  a  little  while." 
And  they  said,  "No,  no,  Mr.  Hillquit,  why,  what  is  your  hurry  ?  Please 
stay  with  us  a  little  longer.'*  And  their  hospitality  became  so  urgent 
and  so  insistent  that  I  could  not  resist  it,  believe  me. 

82 


And  when  I  came  here  to-night  to  keep  my  appointment  with 
you  I  passed  through  a  cortege  of  poUce  officers — ^hundreds  of  them — 
anxiously  looking  out  for  the  protection  of  my  precious  safety  and 
person,  and  finally,  when  I  come  here,  I  find  the  government  has 
deputed  three  of  its  most  intelligent  representatives  to  perpetuate  every 
one  of  my  precious  words  for  the  archives  of  the  United  States,  and 
I  shall  be  very  glad  to  make  a  record  for  them,  to  give  them  pretty 
good  literature,  that  one  will  be  able  to  read  without  being  ashamed  in 
the  years  to  come. 

I  am  going  to  say  first  of  all  for  the  record  and  for  you  that  we 
are  here  to-night  by  the  thousands  and  many  thousands,  as  many  this 
immense  hall  will  hold,  in  order  to  join  our  voice  in  one  reverberating 
cry  for  peace — peace  for  the  people  of  the  United  States,  peace  for 
all  nations,  peace  for  the  world  and  humanity  at  large.  For  the 
peopk  of  the  United  States  and  the  people  of  other  nations  do  not 
want  war.  No  normal  person  wants  war  and  debt  and  suffering.  We 
all  want  peace  and  life  and  joy.  Some  of  our  stupid  metropolitan 
newspapers  want  war  and  are  to  make  their  readers  believe  that  war 
is  a  thing  of  joy  and  happiness.  Outside  of  them,  every  sane  person 
knows  the  contrary.  Even  the  most  bellicose  of  militarists  admit  that 
war  is  an  evil — the  greatest,  the  darkest  evil  that  ever  visited  mankind. 

The  difference  between  them  and  us  is  that  they  say  it  is  a  neces- 
sary evil,  and  we  say  it  is  most  unnecessary — most  wanton — the  most 
wanton  of  all  evils — an  evil  deliberately  brought  about  by  the  cupidity 
of  the  classes  and  by  the  stupidity  of  the  masses.  The  people  of  the 
United  States  do  not  have  to  be  told  at  this  time  what  war  is  and 
implies.  Even  to  the  most  obtuse,  the  meaning  of  war  must  by  this 
time  have  become  perfectly  clear. 

For  three  years  the  nations  of  Europe  have  been  in  convulsions 
of  death  and  destruction.  Milhons  of  men  have  been  slain  by  the 
mad  hands  of  their  fellow  men — millions  have  been  maimed  and  crip- 
pled for  life.  Countries  have  been  devastated.  Civilizations  have  been 
destroyed.  Death,  suffering,  agony,  anguish  has  befallen  the  unfor- 
tunate nations  of  Europe.  A  heavy,  black  cloud  of  suffering  and  de- 
spair is  oppressing  their  lives  and  their  existence.  That  is  what  war 
is  bound  to  do  to  every  nation  which  decided  deliberately  to  join  in 
this  mad  carnival  of  demented  nations  now  engaged  in  war. 

We  know  what  war  means.  We  have  seen  war  and  we  are  here 
to-night  to  ask  ourselves — to  ask  the  world:  Are  we  to  wait  until 
this  country  has  undergone  all  the  sufferings,  all  the  privations,  all  the 
anguish  of  the  nations  of  Europe,  before  we  shall  be  allowed  to  cry  out 
for  peace  and  sanity  or  are  we  now  and  here  to  organize  an  intelli- 
genlt,  a  wise,  a  courageous  movement  of  the  people  to  put  an  end  to 
war  and  all  of  its  sufferings  and  to  bring  about  peace? 

We  have  a  right  to  ask  that  question.  Within  a  few  days  ten 
millions  of  our  young  men  will  present  themselves  for  military  regis- 
tration. Five  hundred  thousand  of  them  will  be  pressed  into  the 
service  alt  once.  Five  hundred  thousand  more  perhaps  will  be  drafted 
within  a  short  time.    They  will  be  (taken  away  from  their  fathers  and 

83 


mothers,  from  their  homes  or  schools — from  their  accustomed  pursuits 
and  modes  of  life.  They  will  be  herded  together  for  months  in  train- 
ing camps  and  drilled,  drilled,  drilled  in  the  deadly  art  of  modern  war- 
fare and  then  eventually,  perhaps,  sent  to  that  terrible  place  from  which 
there  is  rarely  any  return — that  dread  place  somewhere  in  France, 
where  they  may  fill  the  gaps  in  the  trenches  caused  by  the  voracious 
guns  of  the  enemy. 

Our  sons,  our  brothers,  ourselves — we  have  a  right  to  demand — 
what  is  -this  people  called  upon  to  make  these  sacrifices  for?  For 
what  ends,  for  wiiat  aims  are  we  fighting?  Are  we  to  fight  in  self- 
defense  or  are  we  to  shed  our  blood  to  gratify  the  feeling  of  vengeance 
or  the  lust  of  conquest  of  foreign  nations?  We  want  to  know.  We 
are  entitled  to  know. 

In  one  of  his  many  memorable  speeches  President  Wilson  has 
said.  We  are  to  fight  to  make  the  world  safe  for  democracy."  We 
wish  we  could  share  that  optimism,  ''make  the  world  safe  for  democ- 
racy," by  crushing  our  own  democracy  at  home  or  establish  democ- 
racy in  a  foreign,  hostile  country  by  an  armed  force.  Oh  no,  democ- 
racy does  not  come  from  without.  It  must  come  from  within.  Democ- 
racy cannot  be  established  by  gunfire,  but  by  the  fires  of  reason. 

Then,  another  slogan  has  recently  been  launched  by  some  of 
our  newspaper  men  and  statesmen.  We  are  told  we  must  take  the 
place  of  Russia  in  this  war.  What  a  slogan  pregnant  with  deep  and 
sinister  meaning,  "We  must  take  the  place  of  Russia."  The  Rus- 
sian people,  after  three  years  of  war,  forced  by  the  Czar,  have  tired 
of  slaughtering  each  other,  have  tired  of  this  ghastly  game  of  killing, 
and  they  have  said,  "No,  neither  shall  be  shed  the  blood  of  others  to 
satisfy  any  lust  of  conquest.  We  demand  peace  for  the  world."  They 
have  left  a  vacancy  in  the  military  camp.  We  are  now  training  millions 
of  our  citizens  to  take  their  place ;  in  this  bloody  dance  we  are  to  take 
the  place  of  Russia. 

The  Russian  people  have  risen  in  their  might — shaken  off  the  yoke 
of  despotism,  of  oppression,  of  arbitrary  persecution,  of  press  censor- 
ship, of  curtailed  personal  liberties.  We — we  are  introducing  now  press 
censorship  and  persecution  and  militarism  and  rigid  supervision  over  all 
of  our  actions.  We  are  taking  the  place  of  Russia.  Russia  has  de- 
throned her  Czar.  Russia  has  established  democracy,  a  reign  of  free- 
dom, a  reign  of  reason.  We  are  cultivating  despoti^sm,  passion  and 
unreason  in  our  own  country. 

We  are  taking  the  place  of  Russia  and  we  say  to  the  people  of  our 
country:  Now,  rather  than  to  take  the  place  of  the  old,  discredited 
Russia,  of  the  Czar,  let  us  make  common  cause  with  the  modern 
Russia,  the  Russia  of  the  people,  the  Russia  of  freedom.  Let  us  de- 
mand immediate  peace.  And  don't  think  that  your  protest  will  be 
in  vain.  Don't  think  that  you  will  have  no  influence  upon  the  coming 
of  the  day  of  peace.  Thousands  like  you  in  every  city  of  this  coun- 
try— thousands  like  you  in  every  city  of  France,  England,  Germany, 
Austria,   Russia — ^the   people — the   whole   people — the  people   in   its 

84 


might — the  people  alone  will  establish  an  eternal,  a  general,  a  glorious 
peace,  and  nobody  else.  The  kings  and  the  czars,  crowned  and  un- 
crowned, have  precipitated  this  war,  have  destroyed  civilization,  have 
thrown  us  into  the  abyss.  It  remains  for  the  people  themselves  to  save 
civilization,  to  save  mankind.  Long  live  democracy !  Long  live  peace 
forever ! 

Dr.  Magnes  made  an  appeal  for  money  and  a  collection  was  taken 
up  amounting  to  $1,086.  The  slips  prepared  for  pledges  and  mem- 
bership signatures  had  been  confiscated  by  the  authorities. 

Max  Eastman,  Editor  The  Masses,  New  York : 

When  you  have  to  make  a  speech  in  these  days  it  is  very  hard 
to  decide  what  it  is  safe  to  say.  When  anybody  tries  to  stop  the 
war  he  gets  arrested  for  disturbing  the  peace.  When  anybody  ques- 
tions whether  we  are  fighting  a  war  for  liberty  he  gets  knocked  on 
the  head  and  deprived  of  his  own  liberty  in  order  to  prove  to  him  that 
we  are.  But  there  is  one  thing  that  I  Want  to  say,  and  that  I  believe  I 
have  a  right  to  say,  even  in  a  Prussianized  America,  and  that  is  that  if 
our  government  intends  to  try  to  conscript  its  citizens  and  ship  them 
over  to  Europe  to  fight  it  will  be  a  wise  policy  for  our  government  to 
give  an  itemized  statement  of  the  purposes  for  which  they  will  be 
fighting. 

Some  people  want  to  repeal  or  amend  any  conscription  law, 
because  they  object  to  being  marched  in  a  chain  gang,  even  when  they 
can  see  where  they  are  going.  But  I  believe  that  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  people  will  want  to  repeal  this  conscription  law,  because  they 
object  to  being  marched  in  a  chain  gang,  blindfolded.  The  people 
of  this  country  expressed  their  opposition  to  our  joining  the  war  of 
the  Allies  last  November  when  they  returned  Woodrow  Wilson  to  the 
White  House  as  a  peace  President.  But  in  spite  of  that  expression 
of  the  will  of  the  people  war  has  been  declared  and  the  government,  ac- 
knowledging that  it  was  not  able  to  raise  a  volunteer  army  of  500,000 
free  citizens,  adopted  the  principle  of  a  conscriptive  draft.  What  they 
are  planning  to  do  with  this  conscription  act  is  to  gather  the  free 
citizens  of  this  republic  into  small  squares  and  ship  them  over  a 
bloody  sea  to  Europe  to  be  slaughtered  in  a  war  that  is  raging  be- 
tween other  governments  than  their  own,  and  up  to  the  present  moment 
they  have  not  even  had  enough  respect  for  the  intelligence  of  those 
citizens,  even  to  tell  them  the  purposes  for  which  they  are  being 
marched  into  the  pen.  I  believe  that  I  am  within  my  rights  as  a  sov- 
ereign citizen  when  I  condemn,  without  qualification,  this  policy  of 
our  government.  I  want  to  be  informed  in  plain  language  what  are 
the  terms  of  peace. 

Dr.  Scott  Nearing,  Toledo,  Ohio : 

The  last  time  that  I  had  an  opportunity  to  speak  on  this  platform 
I  urged  those  of  you  here  then  present  to  regard  this  war  merely  as 
an  incident — merely  as  one  link  in  a  long  chain  of  sequential  events, 

85 


and  during  the  five  minutes  that  I  have  to-night  I  want  to  repeat  and 
perhaps  amplify  a  Httle  bit  what  I  said  at  that  time.  During  the  past 
forty  years  the  pkitocratic  oligarchy  that  dominates  the  life  of  America 
has  secured  possession  of  the  natural  resources,  the  franchises,  the 
transportation  agencies,  the  credit  machinery  and  the  various  other 
social  tools  of  production.  They  have  likewise  at  their  beck  and 
call  the  daily  press,  the  pulpit,  the  college  rostrum,  the  school  system 
and  the  various  other  channels  through  which  public  opinion  is  formed, 
and  during  the  past  forty  years  the  plutocracy  has  been  fastening  the 
grip  of  its  power  on  the  American  people. 

One  of  the  great  avenues  of  plutocratic  activity  has  been  the 
investment  of  billions  of  dollars  in  Mexico,  Central  America,  the 
West  Indies  and  South  America.  Those  huge  investments  must  be 
protected  agains.t  the  aggressions  of  other  capitalists  from  Belgium, 
France,  Germany,  England,  Russia  and  the  other  foreign  surplus  in- 
vesting nations.  Hence,  there  arose  the  demand  for  a  great  Ameri- 
can army  and  a  great  American  navy  to  back  up  what  we  please  to 
call  the  economic  Monroe  Doctrine,  which  I  take  to  mean  that  no 
foreign  nation  has  the  right  to  pick  the  pockets  of  the  South  American 
people.     We  reserved  that  right  exclusively  for  ourselves. 

The  great  navy  and  army  were  necessary.  You  cannot  maintain 
a  great  navy  and  a  great  army  in  a  democracy  without  universal  mili- 
tary service,  and  therefore  universal  military  service  was  necessary. 
You  cannot  get  universal  military  service  across  in  a  democracy  with- 
out a  war  and  therefore  a  war  was  necessary.  Very  few  people  in 
the  United  States  wanted  war,  excluding  the  capitalist  interests.  They 
wanted  their  foreign  investments  protected.  They  needed  a  military 
establishment  to  protect  them.  They  required  conscription  to  back 
their  military  establishment  and  the  only  possible  way  to  get  con- 
scription was  through  war  with  Mexico — with  Japan — with  England — 
with  Germany — with  anybody  that  would  yield  the  desired  results. 
Now  we  have  the  war — our  participation  in  the  world's  struggle. 
The  American  people  did  not  want  the  war.  The  American  business 
interests  did  want  the  war  and  they  spent  three  years  telling  us  that 
through  their  subsidized,  owned,  kept  press  and  at  the  end  of  that  three 
years  they  got  their  war.  Our  line  of  attack  is  not  against  the  war. 
Our  line  of  attack  is  not  against  the  present  Administration.  Our  line 
of  attack  must  be  fundamentally  against  the  system  of  plutocratic  oli- 
garchy that  dominates  the  United  States  and  makes  war  necessary 
as  a  consequence. 

Dr.  Magnes: 

We  had  expected  to  have  as  the  next  speaker  Job  Harriman  of 
Los  Angeles.  Unfortunately  Mr.  Harriman  made  such  a  good  speech 
at  the  Conference  to-day  that  he  got  too  hoarse  to  be  able  to  speak 
to-night,  and  he  therefore  begs  to  be  excused. 

The  next  speaker  will  be  an  old,  yet  ever-young  champion  of 


democracy — one 'of  the  few  clergymen  who  have  kept  the  faith,  the 
Rev.  Jenkin  Lloyd  Jones. 

Rev.  Jenkin  Lloyd  Jones,  Abraham  Lincoln  Centre,  Chicago : 

Not  that  I  haite  crowns  less,  but  because  I  hate  war  more.  I  am 
opposed  to  this  war,  not  because  it  has  Germany  for  an  enemy,  but 
I  am  opposed  to  all  wars  as  an  inheritance  of  barbaric  and  brutal 
ancestry,  as  something  to  be  outgrown  and  left  behind.  I  am  in 
favor  of  a  peace  without  victory,  because  victory  would  bring  an  un- 
speakable calamity  upon  the  victors.  Alas ;  for  this  twentieth  century 
of  Christian  era  that  establishes  its  power  by  the  triumph  of  the 
sw^ord,  for  history  proves  that  the  conquest  of  the  conqueror  has 
always  been  brief — the  reign  of  the  administrations  established  by 
power  have  passed,  while  the  power  of  the  advocates  of  love  and  peace 
endure  through  the  centuries.  You  find  the  conquest  of  the  man 
of  the  sword  in  the  past  only  with  the  spade  digging  in  the  sands  of 
oblivion  while  the  triumphs  of  love  endure  forever.  I  come  here  to 
stand  up  with  you  to  be  counted.  I  come  here  to  be  found  on  the 
firing  line  for  peace.  I  have  a  right  to  speak  on  this  matter.  I  wear 
a  button,  the  Grand  Army  Button,  that  tells  you  that  I  followed  the  flag 
for  three  years  where  it  was  not  comfortable.  I  was  where  Grant 
and  Sherman  and  Logan  were.  I  followed  them  through  Collins,  to 
Vicksburg,  Vicksburg  to  Missionary  Ridge,  Missionary  Ridge  to 
Atlanta  and  Atlanta  back  to  Nashville,  and  I  come  here  to  tell  you  that 
the  war  from  the  inside  justifies  the  verdict  of  history  that  it  is  the 
wrong,  wrong  way,  even  of  doing  the  right  thing. 

Seymour  Stedman,  Chicago : 

Liberty  cannot  live  without  the  freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press. 
Five  score  and  ten  years  ago  the  colonies  upon  the  Atlantic  coast  per- 
mitted the  organization  of  the  American  Republic,  only  upon  condition 
that  there  should  be  written  into  the  life  of  a  new  republic  their  first 
article  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  which  guaranteed  the  right  and  the 
freedom  to  speak.  We  have  remained  to  this  day  to  find  the  Chan- 
cellors of  the  United  States  and  its  Prime  Ministers  challenging  that 
right,  proposing  to  take  away  the  right  of  the  press  to  educate  the 
public,  the  right  of  freedom  of  speech,  and  even  it  is  suggested  to  take 
away  the  privilege  of  asking  its  offijcials  upon  what  terms  they  will 
be  inclined  to  make  peace.  Before  election  you  are  sovereign  citizens 
and  are  supreme  officers  of  your  servants.  Now  they  are  sovereigns 
and  you  become  their  servants.  Let  us  make  one  thing  emphatic,  that 
as  liberty  rises  in  Russia  it  shall  not  perish  here. 


87 


The  Co>Operatlve  Press 


15  Spruce  Street,  N.  Y, 


¥ 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


13^p|''60P■ 


IRFeb-65'^ 


fiv 


^N  STACKS 


IN  STACKS 


^^5  4  ms 


MAR  30 1960 


^gC'D  Ln 


^^^1Q'65-9PM 


^gC'D 


tfr 


May 


^^Mo 


«fii»'e4Bt 


IN  STACKS 


OCT  2  5 1964 

RECD  LU 


fEB4    '65-lPNI 


LD  21A-50wi-4,'59 
(A1724sl0)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  Californij 

Berkeley 


898340 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


■,  ■--■^■t/\*m?50S'.lM 


